Karen Henry v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 17-3025 KAREN SHANAIR HENRY, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent __________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No.: A205-986-944) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley _____________________________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on April 17, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: May 2, 2018) O P I N I O N* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Karen Shanair Henry 1 petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision of inadmissibility and order of removal. The IJ sustained four independent charges of inadmissibility against Henry: (1) alien present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(1)); (2) alien who by fraud or willful misrepresentation procured or sought to procure a visa, other documentation or admission into the U.S. or other benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)); (3) alien who falsely represented herself to be a U.S. citizen for any purpose or benefit under federal or state law (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)); and (4) alien who has been convicted of or who admits to committing acts which constitute a crime of moral turpitude (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)). Henry concedes that she was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. Br. for Appellant at 26. Our review is therefore limited to constitutional and legal issues; we do not review the agency’s findings of fact. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pierre v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 528 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2008). Henry argues that she is not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(1), (a)(6)(C)(i), or (a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). She also argues that her inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) should be waived. These arguments rely in part on the IJ’s factual findings, which are outside the scope of our review. To the extent that her arguments raise reviewable legal issues, they are without merit. We will therefore deny Henry’s petition for review. 1 The petitioner also goes by the name Karen Ming Henry. 2 I. Background Henry is a Jamaican citizen who entered the United States some time in or before 2012. In 2012, Henry applied for a U.S. passport, falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. SA59. As a result, Henry was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542, which prohibits knowingly making a false statement in an application for a U.S. passport. SA59, 62. Henry pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Henry v. United States, No. 1:12-cr-00065-RGA, 29014 WL 5307177 (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2014). Henry was placed in removal proceedings on November 14, 2013. SA 70-72. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) charged Henry as inadmissible on four independent grounds ...

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