AMENDED ALD-083 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2874 ___________ FREUD LABARRIERE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A042-148-256) Immigration Judge: Honorable Alice Song Hartye ____________________________________ Submitted on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, to Summarily Deny the Petition for Review January 9, 2020 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 30, 2020) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se petitioner Freud Labarriere petitions for review of a final order of removal. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary disposition. We will grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the petition for review in part and summarily deny it in part. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. Labarriere is a citizen of Haiti. He entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1989. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with being removable as an alien who had been convicted of a law relating to a controlled substance. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Through counsel, Labarriere conceded removability, see A.R. at 221, but applied for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). An Immigration Judge (IJ) granted cancellation of removal, concluding that Labarriere’s positive equities outweighed the negative factors. The Government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained the appeal. The BIA concluded that there was “considerable evidence of [Labarriere’s] undesirability,” including his “extensive history of repeated criminal offenses,” his failure to pay taxes, his substantial child-support arrears, and his failure to show rehabilitation. BIA Op. at 2. The BIA noted that there were some positive equities—most notably Labarriere’s lengthy residence in the United States, as well as his three United-States-citizen children and employment history—but that those equities were outweighed by the negative evidence. The BIA also rejected Labarriere’s argument that, due to a December 2018 amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that excluded hemp from its coverage, his drug conviction 2 no longer categorically qualified as a controlled-substance offense under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The BIA ruled that it would not consider this argument because Labarriere had not filed a notice of appeal and because counsel had conceded removability before the IJ. The BIA then explained that even if it were to consider the argument on the merits, the argument would fail because the removability analysis requires the agency to compare the statute of conviction to the federal statute at the time of the conviction, rendering any subsequent amendment irrelevant. Labarriere filed a timely petition for review to this Court. He has also filed a motion to terminate his removal proceedings. We generally have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). However, our jurisdiction is limited ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals