Mohamed Sheikh Ibrahim v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1599 ___________ MOHAMED HASSAN SHEIKH IBRAHIM, AKA Mohamed Hassan Ibrahim, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A072-377-286) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 27, 2017 Before: Ambro and Krause, Circuit Judges, and Conti, District Judge.* (Opinion filed: September 28, 2017) ___________ OPINION** ___________ KRAUSE, Circuit Judge * Honorable Joy Flowers Conti, Chief District Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Mohamed Hassan Sheikh Ibrahim, a.k.a. Mohamed Hassan Ibrahim,1 petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, we will deny the petition. I. Background Sheikh, a native and citizen of Somalia, entered the United States as a teenager in 1990 and was granted asylum in 1995. In 1996, his status was adjusted, and he became a lawful permanent resident. In 2011, the Government charged him as removable. The Government issued a notice to appear, which alleged that Sheikh had incurred two convictions, a December 2000 Virginia conviction for uttering and delivering a forged check, and a March 2011 federal conviction for falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen, using a false passport, and using a false naturalization certificate. On the basis of these convictions, the Government charged Sheikh as removable on three grounds: (1) Immigration & Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct; (2) INA § 237(a)(3)(D) for having falsely represented himself as a United States citizen; and (3) INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for having been convicted of an 1 We will refer to the petitioner as Sheikh, as he uses this surname in his brief. 2 aggravated felony as defined in § 101(a)(43)(R) of the INA.2 In October 2011 the IJ ordered Sheikh removed.3 He waived his right to appeal to the BIA. In 2016, Sheikh returned to the agency. He filed a motion to reopen before the IJ4 asserting changed country conditions and seeking to apply for withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In particular, he argued that, after he was ordered removed, “ISIS obtained a foothold in Somalia and declared a worldwide caliphate,” and the Federal Government of Somalia, established in 2012, had engaged in significant human rights abuses. J.A. 24. In comparison, he noted that at the time of his earlier proceedings Somalia was ruled by the Transitional Federal Government (“TFG”). J.A. 25. Sheikh cited the State Department Report for ...

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