Mercurius Jallim v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 16-16775 Date Filed: 10/17/2017 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16775 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A097-985-358 MERCURIUS JALLIM, a.k.a. Mercurius Messala Mauril Jallim, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 17, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-16775 Date Filed: 10/17/2017 Page: 2 of 11 Petitioner Mercurius Jallim, a native and citizen of St. Lucia, petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal finding Petitioner inadmissible as an arriving alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the BIA and IJ violated his due process rights by determining that he was properly classified as an arriving alien. He also argues that the BIA’s conclusion that he fell within one of the exceptions authorizing the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to charge him with inadmissibility was incorrect legally and lacked reasoned consideration. After careful review, we deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part. I. BACKGROUND In 2006, Petitioner adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. One year later, in 2007, he was convicted of financial identity fraud, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-121. In 2015, Petitioner arrived at the airport in Atlanta and applied for admission to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. The DHS subsequently issued Petitioner a notice to appear (“NTA”) in October 2015, charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), as an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. At a hearing before the IJ, Petitioner, through counsel, admitted the allegations in the NTA and conceded removability. He indicated that he would 2 Case: 16-16775 Date Filed: 10/17/2017 Page: 3 of 11 seek relief in the form of cancellation of removal. The DHS later filed an additional charge of inadmissibility: that Petitioner was inadmissible as an alien who procured “admission into the United States or other benefit provided under” the Immigration and Nationality Act by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Specifically, the DHS alleged that although Petitioner began committing financial identity fraud in August 2000, on his subsequent adjustment-of-status application and in his interview, he had answered “no” to a question that asked whether he had ever knowingly committed a crime involving moral turpitude for which he had not been arrested. At a subsequent hearing before the IJ, Petitioner, through counsel, contested his classification as an arriving alien and requested to change his plea to deny removability. Petitioner clarified that he was not contesting the actual allegation that he had misrepresented a material fact on his adjustment-of-status application, but was instead challenging the fact that he had been charged with inadmissibility rather than removability. The IJ set the matter for ...

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