CLD-071 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-3021 ___________ JONATHAN ABDIAS PENA CHARLES, AKA Jonathan Pena Williams Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A060-509-153) Immigration Judge: Alice Song Hartye ____________________________________ Submitted on a Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 27, 2022 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed February 4, 2022) _________ 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. Jonathan Abdias Pena Charles petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that he was removable as charged and ineligible for cancellation of removal. On the Government’s motion, we will summarily deny the petition for review. Pena Charles is a citizen of the Dominican Republic who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2009. In November 2013, Pena Charles committed offenses that resulted in his conviction in Pennsylvania for terroristic threats and intent to terrorize another. See 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1). In March 2021, the Government charged him with removability as a noncitizen convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Appearing before an Immigration Judge, Pena Charles challenged the charge of removability. The IJ rejected that argument, noting that this Court had specifically concluded that a conviction under § 2706(a)(1) categorically is a “crime involving moral turpitude.” Javier v. Att’y Gen., 826 F.3d 127, 131 (3d Cir. 2016). Pena Charles also sought to apply for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The IJ denied that request, holding that Pena Charles was not statutorily eligible because he had not accrued seven years of continuous residence. In particular, the IJ concluded that Charles Pena’s commission of the offense that rendered him removable triggered the stop-time rule. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (providing that the seven-year period terminates upon commission of certain criminal conduct). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed without opinion. Pena Charles filed timely a pro se petition for review (Doc. 1), and two motions 2 for a stay of removal. (Docs. 2 & 7.) Thereafter, Pena Charles filed his pro se brief. (Doc. 15.) The Government opposes the stay motions, (Doc. 6 & 8), and has filed a motion to summarily deny the petition for review. (Doc. 16.) We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, see Yusupov v. Att’y Gen., 518 F.3d 185, 197 (3d Cir. 2008), and we may take summary action if Pena Charles’ petition does not present a substantial question, see 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Pena Charles argues that his terroristic threats conviction under § 2706(a)(1) does not render him removable because it does not categorically involve moral turpitude. Pet’r’s Br., …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals