NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 18-2823 ____________ SHANE PRYCE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A056-059-647) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston Argued under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) On September 21, 2020 Before: AMBRO, PORTER and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 18, 2021) Alice E. Loughran Anna Stressenger (Argued) Steptoe & Johnson 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Petitioner Julie M. Iversen (Argued) Jeffrey R. Meyer United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent O P I N I ON * ROTH, Circuit Judge: I. Shane Pryce petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order, denying his application for cancellation of removal. Because Pryce failed to exhaust any administrative challenge to the Immigration Judge’s finding that he was statutorily ineligible for such relief, we will dismiss Pryce’s petition and remand this case to the BIA. II. Pryce, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was admitted to the United States as a conditional resident in April 2003, which status was later adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident. In 2008, he was arrested for dispensing or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance within a school zone under N.J. Stat. Ann § 2C:35-7. Pryce entered a guilty plea and was convicted of the offense in 2010. 1 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 A judgment of conviction was initially entered against Pryce on March 8, 2010, but the state court corrected and re-entered the conviction on July 9, 2010 due to “wrong sentence information.” 2 In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began removal proceedings against Pryce based on his controlled substance charge. 2 Pryce applied for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application for failure to satisfy § 1229b(a)(2), which requires that a noncitizen accrue seven years’ continued residence in the United States before he may be eligible for cancellation of removal. The IJ found that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (the “stop-time rule”), Pryce’s continued residence in the U.S. terminated on the date he committed a controlled substance offense in May 2008, less than seven years after entering the country. Alternatively, the IJ denied Pryce’s application in the exercise of discretion. Pryce filed a pro se notice of appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), challenging the IJ’s continued residency and discretionary findings. Several months later, Pryce—through counsel—filed a brief before the BIA appealing the IJ’s decision on the basis that his prior counsel provided ineffective assistance by applying for cancellation of removal when Pryce was statutorily ineligible for such relief. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, finding that Pryce “concedes that he is ineligible ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals