Manuel Abdale Pizarro v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-1268 ________________ MANUEL AHMED ABDALE PIZARRO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars Q. Golparvar (No. A087-099-885) ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 19, 2017 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 20, 2017) ________________ OPINION* ________________ AMBRO, Circuit Judge * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Manuel Abdale Pizarro asks us to reverse the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility. We are without jurisdiction to do so and thus dismiss his petition with respect to the BIA’s exercise of discretion and deny it with respect to all other issues raised. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Cospito v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 539 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2008). I. BACKGROUND Pizarro first entered the United States in 1987. He later married and now has six children, all of whom are United States citizens. Between 2002 and 2009, Pizarro worked as a mortgage loan officer. In 2009, he was indicted on wire fraud charges for overstating borrowers’ incomes on two mortgage loan applications. Pizarro pled guilty and the Court sentenced him to spend 366 days in prison and to pay $370,000 as compensation for the loss caused by the two mortgage loan foreclosures. The wire-fraud conviction set in play a downward spiral for Pizarro. Fearing prison, he obtained $13,000 from an acquaintance, which he claims he planned to pay back (the record is not clear precisely how he came by the money), and absconded to Ecuador. Pizarro reentered the United States by crossing the southern border without authorization in 2013 and was apprehended a year later. He was subsequently convicted of failing to appear to serve his initial wire-fraud sentence as well as embezzling the $13,000. In 2015 the Government began proceedings to remove Pizarro from the United States as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. See INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). To avoid deportation, he requested an adjustment of status, and it is undisputed that he cannot obtain the relief he requests without the grant of a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to INA § 212(h). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Under INA § 212(h) waivers may be granted, among other reasons, if removal would result in “extreme hardship” for citizens or permanent-residents who are members of the petitioner’s immediate family. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Whether to grant a waiver of inadmissibility is left to the discretion of the Attorney General, but immigrants who were “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in the United States before being “convicted of an aggravated felony” are statutorily ineligible for a waiver. Id. The Immigration Judge assigned to Pizarro’s case held both that he was statutorily ineligible for ...

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