NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1466 ___________ NNAMDI RABBI AWOMOKORIE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A063-937-008) Immigration Judge: Honorable John P. Ellington ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 15, 2019 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., RESTREPO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 12, 2019) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Nnamdi Rabbi Awomokorie petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which dismissed his appeal from a removal order issued by an Immigration Judge (IJ). We will deny the petition for review. Awomokorie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States as a Lawful Permanent Resident in 2015. In June 2017, he pleaded guilty to one count of theft in an amount less than $1500 in violation of Del. Code Ann. Tit. 11 § 841 (2012), and the state court sentenced him to a one-year term of imprisonment, with all but four days suspended, and a year of probation. After he violated the terms of his parole, the trial court amended the sentence slightly to order that Awomokorie be incarcerated for more of his one-year sentence than before. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security filed a notice to appear, charging Awomokorie with removability as an aggravated felon under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for the 2017 theft conviction. See INA § 101(a)(43)(G). Awomokorie, through counsel, conceded the charge, and the IJ found him removable. The IJ continued the hearing several times in order for Awomokorie to file an application for relief from removal. When Awomokorie did not submit any, the IJ ordered him removed to Nigeria. Awomokorie, proceeding pro se, appealed, challenging the removability determination despite his concession and claiming that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The BIA rejected his arguments and dismissed the appeal. Awomokorie timely petitioned for review pro se. 1 1 He previously filed a motion for a stay of removal, which we denied. 2 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), but because of Awomokorie’s conviction, our review is confined to constitutional and legal claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). We review any such claims de novo. See Mudric v. Att’y Gen., 469 F.3d 94, 97 (3d Cir. 2006). Awomokorie challenges his removability on two main grounds; neither has merit. First, in his brief, Awomokorie raises arguments related to his theft conviction. Largely, his challenge is a collateral attack on his state conviction. 2 However, that challenge exceeds the scope of removal proceedings. See Giammario v. Hurney, 311 F.2d 285, 287 (3d Cir. 1962) (holding that petitioner could not challenge underlying conviction for removal in the context of a petition for review of a BIA order); see also Drakes v. INS, 330 F.3d 600, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals