NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________ No. 20-2086 _________________ DEMBO SANNOH, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A096-258-047) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Z. Golparvar _______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on January 25, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and HORAN, * District Judge (Opinion filed: March 1, 2021) _______________ OPINION ** _______________ * Honorable Marilyn J. Horan, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western 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. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Dembo Sannoh, a citizen of Sierra Leone and formerly lawful permanent resident, was found with nearly a pound of marijuana. His subsequent conviction for drug trafficking led the Government to seek his removal. Sannoh unsuccessfully challenged that effort, and we find no error in the conclusions reached by the Board of Immigration Appeals. So we will deny Sannoh’s petition. I. BACKGROUND After admission to the United States, Sannoh became a lawful permanent resident. A conviction for possession with intent to deliver .947 pounds (about 430 grams) of marijuana (a felony) and conspiracy to possess a controlled substance (a misdemeanor) followed. As a result, the Government charged Sannoh with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Citing his sexuality, Sannoh then applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Sannoh’s applications, holding that his conviction for drug trafficking was presumptively a particularly serious crime barring relief. And the IJ found that Sannoh failed to establish he would face torture in Sierra Leone. The BIA reached the same result and dismissed his appeal. 2 I. DISCUSSION 1 Conviction for a “particularly serious crime,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), including “aggravated felonies involving unlawful trafficking in controlled substances,” precludes withholding of removal. Matter of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274 (A.G. 2002). A rare exception exists for convictions involving only a “very small quantity of controlled substance.” Id. at 276. But the IJ and the BIA found that Sannoh’s crime exceeded that amount. 2 We find no error in that conclusion. Although there is little guidance on the precise meaning of a “very small amount,” Congress used a 30-gram threshold in other sections of the INA. See, e.g., Sambare v. Att’y Gen., 925 F.3d 124, 128 (3d Cir. 2019); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (removal exception for drug offenses involving 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (waiver of inadmissibility exception for a single simple possession offense involving 30 grams or less). In other immigration contexts, we have held that 120.5 grams of marijuana is not a “small amount.” Catwell v. Att’y Gen., 623 F.3d 199, 209 (3d Cir. 2010). Following that guidance, it is not 1 We have jurisdiction over final orders ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals