PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______ No. 17-2444 ______ AYUB JUMA LUZIGA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______ On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-947-666) Immigration Judge: Roxanne C. Hladylowycz ______ Argued June 17, 2019 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: September 5, 2019) Khary Anderson [ARGUED] University of Pennsylvania School of Law 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Joseph P. Archie Nicolas A. Novy Dechert 2929 Arch Street 18th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 Counsel for Petitioner Jennifer R. Khouri [ARGUED] Tim Ramnitz Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 ______ OPINION OF THE COURT ______ FISHER, Circuit Judge. An Immigration Judge (IJ) decided, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed, that Petitioner Ayub Luziga is ineligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because he was convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” and that he is not entitled to deferral of removal under the CAT because he failed to carry 2 his burden of proof. Luziga requests our review, arguing that the IJ and BIA made two legal errors. First, Luziga argues that the IJ and BIA misapplied the framework for making particularly serious crime determinations, a framework the BIA itself has established in its precedential opinions. Second, Luziga argues that the IJ failed to observe the rule we articulated in Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 554 (3d Cir. 2001), requiring immigration judges to notify a noncitizen in removal proceedings that he is expected to present corroborating evidence before finding that failure to present such evidence undermines his claim. We agree that the IJ and BIA erred in these respects; therefore, we will grant Luziga’s petition for review, vacate the underlying order, and remand.1 I. Ayub Luziga, a native of Tanzania, was lawfully admitted to the United States as a visitor twenty years ago. He later applied and was approved for a student visa but eventually fell out of lawful status. In 2014, he was arrested and indicted for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and conspiracy to commit the same in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The Government alleged that from 2007 to 2008, Luziga, his then- wife, Annika Boas,2 and fellow Tanzanians conspired to “fraudulently secure residential mortgage loans funded by federally-insured financial institutions by causing materially 1 The Court wishes to express its gratitude to a recent graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Khary Anderson, and his supervising lawyers, Joseph Patrick Archie and Christopher J. Mauro of Dechert LLP, for their excellent pro bono representation of the Petitioner in this matter. 2 The record indicates that Luziga and Boas were in divorce proceedings in October 2015. Their current marital status is not reflected in the record. 3 false ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals