Otis Vidale v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-3201 _____________ OTIS KEVIN VIDALE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A036-866-948) ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 28, 2019 ______________ Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges. (Filed: August 29, 2019) ______________ OPINION * ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Petitioner Otis Kevin Vidale (“Vidale”) challenges a final order of removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). In support, he raises four arguments. Because each is unavailing, however, we will deny his petition for review. I. BACKGROUND A citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, Vidale became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in October 1980, at the age of eight. In February 2000, he was convicted of third-degree assault with intent to cause physical injury in violation of New York state law. See N.Y. Penal Law § 120.00(1). In September 2008, he was convicted of (1) bank fraud and (2) conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, both in violation of federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 1344; id. at § 371. Vidale’s judgment of conviction for the federal offenses indicates that he was sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release and ordered to pay $48,898.55 in restitution, for which he and a co-defendant were deemed jointly and severally liable. The judgment of conviction also expresses that the “[t]otal [l]oss” for the scheme was the same as the restitution amount: $48,898.55. App. 22. But the superseding indictment, to which Vidale pled guilty, specifically attributes to Vidale criminal transactions totaling only $5,809.91. Several years after serving his sentence, Vidale embarked on a short vacation abroad with his family. In August 2014, he returned to the United States, at a port in Miami, Florida. Although he sought admission as a lawful permanent resident, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) paroled him into the United 2 States as an applicant for admission, deferring his inspection pending a review of his criminal history. Nearly three years later, in June 2017, DHS personally served Vidale with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him with removability as an applicant for admission convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Importantly, the NTA did not specify the time and date of his removal hearing. A few days later, however, he received a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”), which did indicate the time and date of his removal hearing. Over the next several months, Vidale moved to terminate the removal proceedings and applied for cancellation of removal. But one Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the termination motion, ruling that DHS had indeed established that Vidale was removable under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) ...

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