20-3441-ag Cupete v. Garland United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2021 Submitted: March 4, 2022 Decided: March 16, 2022 No. 20-3441-ag ROBERTO CUPETE, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent. Petition from the Board of Immigration Appeals, No. A 206 222 337. Before: LEVAL, SULLIVAN, PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. In 2014, Roberto Cupete pleaded guilty to using a false document in connection with his application for a U.S. passport, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). That same year, the Department of Homeland Security served Cupete with a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable. While this initial Notice to Appear did not include the date and time of Cupete’s removal hearing, Cupete was subsequently served with a Notice to Appear that included that information. Cupete then appeared, conceded removability, and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, arguing that his removal would cause hardship to his wife and three children, who are all U.S. citizens. Cupete also argued that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) lacked jurisdiction over Cupete’s case because the initial Notice to Appear did not include the date and time of the removal hearing. The IJ rejected that argument and found that Cupete was not eligible for cancellation of removal because Cupete’s violation of § 1001(a) was a crime involving moral turpitude. Cupete appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the IJ’s decision. Under our precedents, there can be no doubt that a Notice to Appear that omits information regarding the time and date of the initial removal hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction in the Immigration Court, so long as a notice specifying this information is later sent to the alien. And because a violation of § 1001(a) requires that an offender make a material misrepresentation with the intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government, it is a crime involving moral turpitude that renders Cupete ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review. DENIED. Patrick Crowley, Esq., New York, NY, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth K. Ottman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. Per Curiam: Petitioner Roberto Cupete, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings and his application for cancellation of removal. In re Roberto Cupete, No. A 206 222 337 (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 2020), aff’g No. A 206 222 337 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 21, 2018). The principal argument in Cupete’s petition is that the BIA erred in concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) is a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) and that Cupete’s conviction for violating that statue makes him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Because a violation of § 1001(a) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals