NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2557 ___________ JHENSY SAILLANT, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (B.I.A. No. A062-280-757) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 23, 2020 Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 7, 2020) ____________________________________ ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Jhensy Saillant petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) removal order. We will deny the petition for review. Saillant is a citizen of Haiti. He entered the United States as an immigrant in 2011. He was convicted of retail theft in 2016, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3929(a)(1), and theft by deception in 2015, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3922(a). Having committed a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) within five years of admission for which the possible sentence is a year or more, he was charged with being removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Saillant admitted that he had the convictions with which he was charged, and the IJ determined that the convictions rendered him removable. A.R. 81. Sail- lant applied for asylum and related relief, but the IJ determined that he had not been perse- cuted in the past and that he did not establish a likelihood that he would be persecuted in the future based on a protected ground.1 Saillant appealed to the BIA, arguing only that his convictions were not CIMTs. The BIA denied relief and Saillant filed a timely, pro se petition for review. After Saillant filed * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Saillant was cut in a random attack when he was fifteen or sixteen years old and he feared general violence in Haiti. He did not pursue his asylum claim before the BIA, however. So although his opening brief argues that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, 2 his opening brief, the Government filed a motion for a full remand and Saillant filed a response in opposition. The motion to remand and response were referred to our panel, and the case is now fully briefed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because we conclude that Saillant is re- movable for having committed a CIMT, however, § 1252(a)(2)(C)’s jurisdiction-stripping provision applies. See Rachak v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 734 F.3d 214, 216 (3d Cir. 2013). As a result, our jurisdiction is limited to questions of law and constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review de novo the BIA’s determination that a conviction is a CIMT, applying the categorical approach. See Moreno v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 887 F.3d 160, 163 (3d Cir. 2018); Ildefonso-Candelario v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 866 F.3d 102, 104 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals