Case: 18-10866 Date Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10866 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A071-794-234 PAUL PENNANT, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. __________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _________________________ (March 21, 2019) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Paul Pennant, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of a final order of removal. He makes two claims. First, he says he was deprived of his Case: 18-10866 Date Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 2 of 8 Fifth Amendment due process rights when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subjected him to two separate removal proceedings in different places. Second, he says he was deprived of his statutory and constitutional rights to counsel. After careful review, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to decide Pennant’s first claim and Pennant’s second claim lacks merit. Thus, we dismiss Pennant’s petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. I. Pennant entered the United States in 1989 on a tourist visa. He came to the attention of immigration authorities in 1995 due to a drug conviction and was put in removal proceedings in Philadelphia in 1998. His case was administratively closed in 1999. It was briefly reopened in 2005 for about six months before it was again administratively closed. The proceedings have not been reopened since, so far as this record shows. In October 2005, after his immigration proceedings were administratively closed, Pennant was convicted in the Southern District of Pennsylvania of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. Pennant received a 174-month sentence. In December 2017, the DHS served Pennant with a Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order. The notice charged that Pennant was 2 Case: 18-10866 Date Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 3 of 8 removable for having committed an aggravated felony, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). The administrative removal proceedings happened in Georgia. Pennant invoked his right to apply for withholding of removal, a form of mandatory immigration relief for noncitizens who can show it is more likely than not their life or freedom would be threatened in the country to which they would return on account of race, religion, national origin, or membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006). Asylum officers interviewed Pennant and determined he did not meet the withholding standard because he failed to show he feared harm on account of a protected ground or that any harm would be inflicted by or with the acquiescence of the government. Pennant sought review of that determination before an immigration judge (IJ). Penannt’s lawyer did not show up for the hearing. Pennant alerted the IJ he had an attorney. In response, the IJ told Pennant he “can have a lawyer but for these proceedings ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals