Case: 17-12545 Date Filed: 08/13/2018 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12545 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A035-505-619 SOMBOON POOMARAT, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 13, 2018) Before WILSON, BRANCH and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Somboon Poomarat, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) Case: 17-12545 Date Filed: 08/13/2018 Page: 2 of 10 order of removal. The IJ found, and the BIA agreed, that Poomarat, a native and citizen of Thailand, was removable: (1) under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), because in 1999 Poomarat was convicted in Florida of possession of cocaine, which is a “controlled substance” offense under the INA; and (2) under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because in 2015 Poomarat was convicted in Florida of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which is an “aggravated felony” under the INA. 1 After review, we deny in part and dismiss in part Poomarat’s petition for review. I. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction to Review Removal Order Poomarat’s petition challenges both grounds for removal, arguing that: (1) his Florida cocaine possession conviction did not actually qualify as a “conviction” for immigration purposes because he received a stay of adjudication and a sentence of probation; and (2) his Florida felon-in-possession conviction did not qualify as 1 The IJ also denied Poomarat’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture on various grounds. We do not discuss these rulings because Poomarat does not challenge them in his petition for review. See Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a claim or issue not plainly and prominently raised in a party’s brief is deemed abandoned). 2 Case: 17-12545 Date Filed: 08/13/2018 Page: 3 of 10 an “aggravated felony” because Florida’s offense is broader than its federal counterpart in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).2 Under the INA, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed an aggravated felony covered in INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), or an offense “relating to a controlled substance,” covered in INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). See INA § 242(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). However, we retain jurisdiction to review questions of law, which includes the threshold issue of whether the petitioner is “(1) an alien; (2) who is removable; (3) based on having committed a disqualifying offense.” Camacho-Salinas v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 460 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted); INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Thus, we retain jurisdiction to review whether Poomarat’s Florida convictions for felon- in-possession and cocaine possession are disqualifying offenses covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i), respectively. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals