Demar Campbell v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-3209 ___________ DEMAR HUGH CAMPBELL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A047-927-750) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 1, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 2, 2021) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Demar Hugh Campbell seeks review of the final agency order authorizing his removal from the United States. The Government has moved to dismiss Campbell’s petition for review (PFR) as untimely. We deny that motion. Additionally, because the only issue properly presented by Campbell lacks merit, we will deny the PFR. I. Campbell was born in Jamaica. At age 17, he immigrated to the United States and obtained the status of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). Several years later, he pleaded nolo contendere to a drug charge in Pennsylvania. As a result, Campbell was served with a notice to appear, charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (making most drug convictions removable offenses). After a bit of litigation before the agency, an immigration judge (IJ) granted relief in the form of cancellation of removal. But Campbell committed more crimes: he was convicted of drug possession and, separately, aggravated assault. A new notice to appear followed, charging removability under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (making aggravated felonies removable offenses) via § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining “aggravated felony” as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16), and § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (making the aggregation of two or more convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT), not arising out of a single scheme, a removable offense). The IJ declined to sustain the aggravated felony and CIMT charges, but sustained the § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) charge. The IJ determined, separately, that Campbell’s aggravated assault conviction constituted a “particularly 2 serious crime” (PSC) under the Immigration and Nationality Act, thus barring him from certain forms of relief. To defend against removal, Campbell argued that he had acquired United States citizenship when he first entered the United States, as a result of his grandmother’s earlier naturalization. Campbell also filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), based on past and feared harm related to his sexual orientation. The IJ rejected the naturalization argument upon finding no evidence that Campbell satisfied the requirement that his grandmother was his legal guardian. Because of the PSC, the IJ determined that Campbell was eligible only for deferral of removal under the CAT. Cf. Bastardo-Vale v. Att’y Gen., 934 F.3d 255, 261, 265 (3d Cir. 2019) (en banc). The IJ rejected the CAT claim, finding it unlikely that the Jamaican government would acquiesce to any harm Campbell might suffer. The IJ ordered that Campbell be removed to Jamaica. By ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals