NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-2508 ______________ CHRISTOPHER COURTNEY MCCALLA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A097-553-556) ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 28, 2021 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO, District Judge. * (Filed: June 11, 2021) ____________ OPINION ** ______________ * The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROBRENO, District Judge. Christopher McCalla petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal. McCalla argues a full and unconditional gubernatorial pardon extinguished the immigration consequences of his controlled substance conviction. He also argues the applicable Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provisions violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. We disagree and will therefore deny the petition for review. I. Background McCalla, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was admitted to the United States in 1990 as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure and overstayed his visa. He has a U.S. citizen spouse and U.S. citizen children. In 2005, McCalla was arrested by the Pennsylvania state police for possession of marijuana. He pled guilty in state court to the offense. McCalla was subsequently placed in removal proceedings as a result of his overstay. In 2008, he applied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status pursuant to Section 240A(b)(1) of the INA, which permits the Attorney General to cancel removal and adjust the immigration status of aliens who, among other things, have been physically present in the United States for at least ten years and whose removal would result in hardship to an immediate family member. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). However, McCalla’s marijuana conviction rendered him statutorily ineligible for cancellation relief or adjustment of status. See id. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). 2 In 2019, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf fully and unconditionally pardoned McCalla for the controlled substance conviction. McCalla informed the BIA of the pardon and argued he was now eligible for cancellation of removal because he was no longer “convicted” of the offense. The BIA disagreed, concluding that McCalla’s conviction rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal despite the gubernatorial pardon. This timely appeal followed. II. Discussion We have jurisdiction over final orders of the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review legal questions concerning the interpretation of the INA de novo. Roye v. Att’y Gen., 693 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2012). On appeal, McCalla raises two arguments. First, he argues the gubernatorial pardon extinguishes the immigration consequences of his controlled substance conviction. Second, he argues the INA’s disparate treatment of aliens convicted of drug possession offenses violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. We consider and reject these arguments in turn. A. Gubernatorial Pardon McCalla’s argument that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals