NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 19-3320 _______________ MOMAR TALLA NDIR, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A200-576-765) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 15, 2020 _______________ Before: CHAGARES, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 16, 2020) ______________ OPINION ______________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PORTER, Circuit Judge. Momar Talla Ndir petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering Ndir removed. We will deny in part and dismiss in part Ndir’s petition for review. I Ndir is a native and citizen of Senegal who arrived in the United States on a non- immigrant visa in 2003 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2013. Then, in 2017, Ndir pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), (a)(1), and one count of aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, (a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. According to Ndir’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), Ndir’s crimes resulted in $481,000 in total identifiable losses, and the money laundering scheme resulted in $294,877.41 in fraudulent purchases associated with Ndir’s membership account at Sam’s Club. Ndir was sentenced to forty-two months’ imprisonment. In 2018, Ndir was charged as removable because he was an aggravated felon based on his money-laundering conviction. A conviction for money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 is an aggravated felony “if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D). During the removal proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security sought to enter Ndir’s conviction record and PSR into evidence. Ndir objected to the admission of the PSR and contested the reliability of its loss calculation. The IJ admitted the evidence. The IJ then found Ndir removable. 2 The IJ granted a continuance, however, because Ndir was planning to marry a United States citizen and then to file for adjustment of status. At a later hearing, Ndir sought another continuance. The IJ denied Ndir’s request because Ndir’s fiancée was still married, her divorce was not finalized, and Ndir had not completed an application for protection from removal. Because Ndir’s previous conviction was a qualifying aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D), the IJ ordered Ndir removed to Senegal. Ndir appealed to the BIA, which adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision finding Ndir removable and denying his request for a continuance. AR 3–4. Ndir timely petitioned for review. II1 Ndir raises three arguments in his petition for review.2 All are meritless. First, Ndir contends that the IJ could not consider the PSR when calculating the loss associated with his offense.3 When deciding whether the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals