NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1354 ______ FIAZ AHMED KHAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A075-917-588) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 29, 2020 Before: SHWARTZ, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: October 7, 2020) ___________ OPINION * ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. Fiaz Ahmed Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, unlawfully entered the United States in 1996 and started working as an auto mechanic. In 2009, he received an adjustment to his immigration status to become a lawful permanent resident, and in 2014, he became an entrepreneur and opened his own shop, King Khan Auto Repair. He is married to a citizen of Pakistan who also has lawful permanent resident status, and together they have two children who are citizens of the United States. But in 2018, Khan was convicted for his participation in a credit card fraud scheme that resulted in over half a million dollars in losses. 1 For that crime, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced him to a year and a day imprisonment and ordered him to pay $202,570 in restitution. Due to Khan’s aggravated felony conviction, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiated regular removal proceedings against him. 2 After a hearing, an Immigration Judge ordered Khan’s removal and denied each of his requests for relief: adjustment of status through a § 212(h) waiver, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. On administrative appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Khan now petitions for review of that order. For the reasons below, we will dismiss in part and deny in part his petition. 1 See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2) (criminalizing conspiracy to commit access device fraud). 2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (providing for removal of admitted aliens who commit an aggravated felony); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (defining “aggravated felony” to include an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000”). 2 I Khan premises his first challenge on the denial of his application for a waiver under § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). He requested such a waiver based on his assertion that his wife, a lawful permanent resident, and his children, United States citizens, will suffer extreme hardship if he is removed to Pakistan. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B) (authorizing the Attorney General to waive an alien’s inadmissibility for “extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien”). But courts lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determinations, including its rulings on requests for a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals