NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-2032 ___________ GREGORY WORRELL WRIGHT, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A099-814-552) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 21, 2022 Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 30, 2022) ____________________________________ ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Gregory Wright petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review. Wright, a citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States in 1997 and later became a legal permanent resident. After being convicted of robbery in New Jersey and sentenced to twelve years in prison, he was charged in 2016 as removable as a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony related to theft, an aggravated felony crime of violence, and a firearm offense. Represented by counsel, Wright applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ sustained the charge that Wright had been convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence.1 Because she also deter- mined that Wright’s robbery conviction was a particularly serious crime, she concluded that Wright was ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ denied his request for deferral of removal under the CAT, having determined that Wright had not established that he would likely be tortured if removed to Jamaica. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 The IJ did not sustain the charge that Wright was removable for having been convicted of a firearm offense and did not address whether Wright was removable as a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony theft offense. 2 Wright filed a pro se appeal to the BIA. The BIA dismissed the appeal and adopted and affirmed the decision of the IJ. It agreed that Wright’s robbery conviction qualified as an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime and that Wright had not met his burden for CAT relief. Wright filed a pro se petition for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We first address Wright’s argument that his robbery conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony crime of violence un- der 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). A crime of violence is, in relevant part, “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). The Government must show by clear and con- vincing evidence that a noncitizen is removable. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). We exercise de novo review over the BIA’s legal conclusions. Singh v. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 503, 508 (3d Cir. 2012). We begin by looking at the statute that Wright was convicted of violating. In New Jer- sey, one …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals