Giorgi Buleishvili v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 21-2031 ____________ GIORGI BULEISHVILI, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A204-096-043) Immigration Judge: Nicholas Martz Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 6, 2023 Before: HARDIMAN, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 19, 2023) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Giorgi Buleishvili petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal. The Board upheld the Immigration Judge’s order of removal, and denial of a waiver of inadmissibility. We will deny in part and dismiss in part Buleishvili’s petition. I We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). But since the IJ found Buleishvili removable because of an aggravated felony, we may review only “constitutional claims and questions of law.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see id. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Chiao Fang Ku v. Att’y Gen., 912 F.3d 133, 138 (3d Cir. 2019). Buleishvili contests the aggravated felony determination. He argues that the Department of Homeland Security failed to prove that he was convicted of “an offense that . . . involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i).1 But documents the Board is permitted to consider show otherwise. See Chiao Fang Ku, 912 F.3d at 139. His judgment of conviction states that he was convicted under “18 USC 1349” for “Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud and Health Care Fraud.” AR 1661. His judgment also orders 1 We have jurisdiction and consider his claim de novo “because it is a purely legal question, and one that governs our own jurisdiction.” Chiao Fang Ku, 912 F.3d at 138 (cleaned up). Buleishvili presented this argument to the IJ and the Board, and the IJ rejected it, thus satisfying our liberal exhaustion policy. See Luziga v. Att’y Gen., 937 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2019). 2 restitution of over $13 million. Buleishvili’s pre-sentence investigation report reinforces that this was “an offense that . . . involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i); see Rad v. Att’y Gen., 983 F.3d 651, 670 (3d Cir. 2020). II Buleishvili next argues that the IJ violated his due process rights at the hearing by forcing his attorney to appear by telephone and by asking biased questions. Neither contention has merit. The record does not support the claim that the IJ prevented Buleishvili’s lawyer “from reasonably presenting his case” or “that substantial prejudice resulted” from his telephone appearance. See Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 155 (3d Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). Buleishvili describes the hearing before the IJ as “marred by confusion and unintelligibility.” Buleishvili Br. 25. Yet the transcript reveals nothing more than …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals