NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0641n.06 Case No. 19-4224 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Nov 12, 2020 ALTIN BASHKIM SHUTI, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE BOARD OF ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: BOGGS, STRANCH, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. THAPAR, Circuit Judge. After Altin Shuti committed unarmed robbery, the Department of Homeland Security moved to deport him. Shuti objected, arguing that his crime doesn’t qualify for removal and that he would be persecuted if deported to Albania. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected Shuti’s claims. Because unarmed robbery (as Michigan defines it) is a crime of violence, and because Shuti did not establish that he is more likely than not to be persecuted in Albania, we deny the petition for review. I. Altin Shuti is an Albanian citizen. When he was thirteen, his family fled to the United States because they feared persecution by the Socialist Party of Albania, which had placed Shuti’s father in a forced labor camp. Shuti became a lawful permanent resident and his parents became Case No. 19-4224, Shuti v. Barr United States citizens. But six years later, Shuti pled guilty to unarmed robbery, and the Department of Homeland Security moved to deport him. The Department of Homeland Security notified Shuti that he was removable because his Michigan unarmed robbery conviction was a “crime of violence” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16. Shuti agreed and conceded that he was removable. But Shuti’s case didn’t end there. Shuti claimed that he would be persecuted in Albania and applied for relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture. The agency denied his request. So Shuti changed his approach and argued on appeal that he was not removable. There were two statutory definitions of a “crime of violence,” and Shuti claimed that one of the two was unconstitutional. See 18 U.S.C. § 16; id. § 16(b). Our court agreed: We remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings. Shuti v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 440, 451 (6th Cir. 2016) (Shuti I). On remand, the agency held that Shuti’s conviction still qualified under the unchallenged definition of a “crime of violence,” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). The agency also affirmed the denial of Shuti’s request for relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture. Shuti now petitions for review and argues that the agency erred by: (1) holding that his unarmed robbery conviction is a “crime of violence,” (2) denying him relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture, and (3) denying his request to remand for additional factfinding. None of these arguments is persuasive, so we deny the petition for review. -2- Case No. 19-4224, Shuti v. Barr II. Shuti’s first argument is that the agency erred by holding that his unarmed robbery conviction is a “crime of violence.” We review ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals