NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1242 ___________ DEURY PLASENCIA PLASENCIA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A064-175-092) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 27, 2023 Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed July 28, 2023) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Deury Plasencia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal. We will deny the petition. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not Plasencia is a citizen of the Dominican Republic. He entered the United States in 2015 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2017, he was convicted of receiving stolen property in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3925(a). The Department of Homeland Security served him with a Notice to Appear charging him with having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for which a sentence of a year or more could be imposed, within five years of his admission to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Plasencia, proceeding pro se, conceded the charge and an Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained it, but Plasencia later moved to terminate removal proceedings by challenging the CIMT charge.1 The IJ rejected his arguments, denied the motion and other relief, and ordered him removed to the Dominican Republic. The BIA agreed that Plasencia’s conviction constituted a CIMT, affirmed the denial of relief, and dismissed the appeal. Plasencia timely petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction over Plasencia’s petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo the BIA’s legal determinations, which include its interpretation of state criminal laws and analysis of constitutional issues. See Hernandez-Cruz v. Att’y Gen., 764 F.3d 281, 284 (3d Cir. 2014); Mehboob v. Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 272, 275 (3d Cir. 2008). Our decisions describe the requisite “morally turpitudinous” conduct for a CIMT as an act that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved,” and state that “the hallmark of moral constitute binding precedent. 1 He also sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but he has forfeited any challenges to the denial of that relief because he 2 turpitude is a reprehensible act committed with an appreciable level of consciousness or deliberation.” Hernandez-Cruz, 764 F.3d at 284-85 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We use the categorial approach to determine whether a petitioner’s conviction qualifies as a CIMT. See Mahn v. Att’y Gen., 767 F.3d 170, 174 (3d Cir. 2014). This requires an examination of the relevant criminal statute and the record of conviction, not the petitioner’s conduct. See id. We must consider whether “the least culpable conduct necessary to sustain a conviction under the statute” would still qualify as a CIMT. Partyka v. Att’y Gen., 417 F.3d 408, 411 (3d Cir. 2005). Plasencia conceded …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals