NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-3306 _____________ TAYLOR JOSE BRANCO-ANTONIO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A075-795-143) Immigration Judge: Hon. Kuyomars Q. Golparvar _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 12, 2019 Before: JORDAN, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Filed November 25, 2019) _______________ OPINION* _______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Taylor Branco-Antonio seeks review of a decision rendered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The government argues in response that we lack * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. jurisdiction over the petition for review. We hold that we have jurisdiction, but we will deny the petition. I. BACKGROUND Branco-Antonio is a native and citizen of Angola who arrived in the United States as a nine-year-old in 1997, when his family fled violence in Angola. He and his family were granted asylum. Effective January 31, 2005, Branco-Antonio adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident. Branco-Antonio’s immigration status was put in jeopardy when he was convicted of retail theft on four separate occasions: three times in 2011-2012 and once in 2017. In 2012 and 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated, and subsequently suspended, removal proceedings against him under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) based on the determination that he is an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. In September 2017, the Department of Homeland Security submitted a motion to re-calendar his removal proceedings. Branco-Antonio then filed an application for re-adjustment of status with a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), citing hardship to his U.S. citizen family members. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the waiver and ordered Branco-Antonio removed. The IJ did not find that Branco-Antonio’s family members would suffer extreme hardship if he were removed. Further, the IJ exercised his discretion and determined that the adverse factors of Branco-Antonio’s undesirability as a permanent resident outweighed the social and humane considerations of allowing him to 2 remain in the United States. Branco-Antonio appealed, and on July 10, 2018, the BIA dismissed the appeal, considering the same discretionary factors as had the IJ. Branco-Antonio then invoked 8 U.S.C. § 1229a in a motion to reopen and to stay removal. The claimed basis of his motion was that he was newly eligible for cancellation of removal as a lawful permanent resident, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, and that new material evidence had been discovered concerning his mother’s health problems. Despite that pending motion, Branco-Antonio was removed to Angola on August 18, 2018. A month later, the BIA denied his motion to reopen. In its analysis, the BIA exercised its discretion to weigh the adverse factors of Branco-Antonio’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations of allowing ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals