NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 17-2800 _______________ CRISTIAN ROSARIO PICHARDO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A055-968-724) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar _______________ Argued: July 10, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 23, 2018) _______________ OPINION _______________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. Jessica K. Southwick [Argued] Anthony C. Vale Pepper Hamilton 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Petitioner Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel Jesse L. Busen [Argued] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044, Counsel for Respondent RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Cristian Rosario Pichardo petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons stated below, we will deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. I. Pichardo is a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) from the Dominican Republic who has been living in the United States since 2002. On the basis of a 2014 conviction for possession of a controlled substance, he was initially charged with being removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Following the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) preliminary determination that Pichardo was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), the Government amended the charging document to include a second basis for removability: a 2016 misdemeanor conviction for 2 “[i]ntimidation of witnesses or victims” under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4952(a)(1).1 Finding that his 2016 conviction constituted an aggravated felony as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), the IJ concluded that Pichardo was no longer eligible to obtain cancellation of removal and ordered him removed. On appeal to the BIA, Pichardo disputed that his conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4952(a)(1) was an aggravated felony precluding him from obtaining the relief requested. The BIA agreed with the IJ and dismissed the appeal, holding that Pichardo’s conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under the categorical approach. Pichardo now petitions this Court for review.2 II. The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We exercise plenary review regarding whether a conviction relates to obstruction of justice. Denis v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 633 F.3d 201, 209 1 The relevant provision of Pennsylvania misdemeanor “Intimidation of witnesses or victims” provides: A person commits an offense if, with the intent to or with the knowledge that his conduct will obstruct, impede, impair, prevent or interfere with the administration of criminal justice, he intimidates or attempts to intimidate any witness or victim to: (1) Refrain from informing or reporting to any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals