Lisbell Patino Madge v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-3404 ______________ LISBELL MARIONE PATINO MADGE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A043-660-315) Immigration Judge: Matthew Watters ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 23, 2021 ______________ Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Filed: September 28, 2021) ______________ OPINION ______________  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. PORTER, Circuit Judge. Lisbell Patino-Madge is a native and citizen of Peru and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In 2012, she was convicted of retail theft and conspiracy under Pennsylvania law, for which she received twelve months’ probation. In 2017, Patino-Madge was convicted of simple assault under Pennsylvania law, for which she received four to twelve months’ imprisonment. Based on the assault conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged her with removability for having been convicted of (1) two or more crimes involving moral turpitude and (2) an aggravated felony. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) sustained the charges, and Patino-Madge appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed the appeal, ruling that Patino-Madge was properly found removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Patino-Madge timely petitioned this Court for review of the BIA’s decision. We will deny the petition. I We have jurisdiction over this petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). The IJ held that Patino-Madge’s assault conviction is both an aggravated felony and a crime involving moral turpitude, but the BIA affirmed only on the basis that the assault conviction is an aggravated felony. “Where the BIA affirms and partially reiterates the IJ’s discussions and determinations, we look to both decisions. If the Board relies only on some of the grounds given for denying relief, we review only these grounds.” Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 515 (3d Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Our review is thus limited to whether Patino-Madge’s assault conviction is an aggravated felony, which is a 2 legal question that we review de novo. See Restrepo v. Att’y Gen., 617 F.3d 787, 790 (3d Cir. 2010). We write for the parties, who are familiar with the record. II “Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Congress defined “aggravated felony” with a list of offenses. See id. § 1101(a)(43). The list includes “crime[s] of violence” for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. Id. § 1101(a)(43)(F). A “crime of violence” is in turn defined as “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). Patino-Madge was sentenced to four to twelve months’ imprisonment for her simple-assault conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701(a)(3). See Bovkun v. Ashcroft, …

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