Case: 16-17757 Date Filed: 11/16/2017 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-17757 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A046-711-528 SAMOIL PRUTEANU, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 16, 2017) Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-17757 Date Filed: 11/16/2017 Page: 2 of 7 Samoil Pruteanu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision upholding an immigration judge’s order of removal based on his convictions for an aggravated felony. The BIA held that his Georgia convictions for burglary qualified as aggravated felonies, thus making him statutorily ineligible to seek discretionary relief from removal. Mr. Pruteanu argues that the Georgia burglary statute underlying his convictions does not qualify as generic burglary, and that a panel of this Court erred in holding that the statute was divisible and, therefore, subject to the modified categorical approach. See United States v. Gundy, 842 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-8617, 2017 WL 1301351 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). The government contends that Mr. Pruteanu’s arguments about his burglary convictions are moot because he conceded removability on two other grounds. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to address the appeal, and are bound by Gundy in our interpretation of the Georgia burglary statute. We therefore deny the petition. I Because we write for the parties, we assume their familiarity with the underlying record and recite only what is necessary to resolve this appeal. The immigration judge found Mr. Pruteanu to be removable after determining that his Georgia burglary convictions qualified as aggravated felonies under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 2 Case: 16-17757 Date Filed: 11/16/2017 Page: 3 of 7 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”). The INA defines an aggravated felony as “a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense” for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. See INA § 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). The BIA also held that Mr. Pruteanu’s convictions constituted burglary offenses and were aggravated felonies under INA § 101(a)(43)(G), thus rendering him removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii). II Questions about our subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo. See Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). On the merits, we review conclusions of law de novo, and we evaluate factual determinations under the substantial evidence test. See Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 403. The determination of whether Mr. Pruteanu’s burglary convictions qualify as aggravated felonies is thus subject to de novo review. See Spaho v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1172, 1176 (11th Cir. 2016). We review only the BIA’s decision as the final judgment because the BIA did not expressly adopt the immigration judge’s reasoning. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals