NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-1823 _____________ ROBERTO LUNA-REYES, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (A87-942-339) Immigration Judge: Alberto J. Riefkohl ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 14, 2019 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and PORTER, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: September 3, 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. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Roberto Luna-Reyes petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA correctly concluded that Luna-Reyes’s third drunk-driving offense constituted a “conviction” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A), the BIA properly held that he was ineligible for relief. We will therefore deny the petition for review. I Luna-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, arrived in the United States in 1992 without inspection. In 2010, Luna-Reyes was convicted of having “a third or subsequent violation” of New Jersey’s Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”) statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:4-50(a)(3), and a municipal court sentenced him to 180 days in jail, imposed a $1,000 fine, ordered that he install an ignition interlock device in his car, and suspended his license for ten years, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:4-50(a)(3) (providing these penalties “[f]or a third or subsequent violation” of the DWI statute). The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) thereafter issued to Luna-Reyes a notice to appear before an IJ and charged him with removability as an “alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.” AR 653. The initial notice to appear did not specify a date or time for his removal hearing, but DHS later issued Luna- Reyes a notice of hearing that included this information. 2 Luna-Reyes appeared before an IJ for a hearing and sought cancellation of removal. The IJ reasoned that, for Luna-Reyes to obtain cancellation of removal, he had to establish, among other things, that he was a “person of good moral character” during his period of physical presence in the United States. AR 116 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B)). Because the INA provides that a person does not have “good moral character” if he was “confined” “to a penal institution for an aggregate period of one hundred and eighty days or more,” and Luna-Reyes received a 180-day jail sentence for his DWI conviction, the IJ held that he was not entitled to relief. AR 117 (emphasis omitted). To the IJ, it was irrelevant for immigration purposes that New Jersey “classifies DWI as a ‘violation’ rather than a ‘crime’ and precludes the offense from giving rise to any criminal disabilities” within the state. AR 117. Luna-Reyes appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. The BIA reasoned that because Luna-Reyes’s “180 days of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals