Case: 20-60952 Document: 00516346854 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 7, 2022 No. 20-60952 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Emmanuel Chukwuka Monsonyem, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A059 960 427 Before Clement, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Emmanuel Chukwuka Monsonyem, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was admitted to the United States on January 10, 2009, under the terms of an immigrant visa. On June 30, 2017, he was convicted in Texas state court of the felony offense of injury to a child, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.04(a)(3). On December 13, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Monsonyem with a Notice to Appear (NTA), charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), as an alien who, at any time after admission, was convicted of a crime of child abuse. Case: 20-60952 Document: 00516346854 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2022 No. 20-60952 In an April 2019 hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Monsonyem, appearing with counsel, admitted to the allegations set forth in the NTA but contested the charge of removability. He filed a motion to terminate, arguing that his Texas state conviction for injury to a child under § 22.04(a)(3) did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Specifically, he argued that an offense under § 22.04(a) is categorically broader than child abuse because § 22.04(a) also criminalizes injury to an elderly person or a disabled individual. Further, he asserted that the modified categorical approach could not be applied to the statute because it is indivisible as to the victim class. The DHS opposed the motion, arguing that the statute is divisible and that under the modified categorical approach, his offense should be deemed a crime of child abuse. After hearing argument from the parties, the IJ sustained the charge of removability. In August 2019, Monsonyem applied for cancellation of removal. He requested that the IJ exercise his discretion to grant him relief, arguing that, as required by statute, he had been lawfully admitted as a permanent resident for at least five years; he had resided in the United States continuously for seven years after his admission; and he had not been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). After a hearing, the IJ denied Monsonyem’s request for cancellation of removal, ordered him removed, and denied his request for voluntary departure. Monsonyem appealed to the BIA, asserting numerous errors in the IJ’s decision. On September 15, 2020, the BIA dismissed Monsonyem’s appeal, denied his requests for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure, and ordered his removal. Proceeding pro se, Monsonyem then submitted a petition for review to this court. 2 Case: 20-60952 Document: 00516346854 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2022 No. 20-60952 I. When reviewing a BIA decision, we consider legal questions, including jurisdictional issues, de novo. See …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals