NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 17-1613 ______________ ZAKARIA SHERIFF, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A060-519-204) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter Durling ______________ Argued on September 11, 2019 BEFORE: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: October 21, 2019) Benjamin M. Daniels (ARGUED) Tadhg Dooley Wiggin and Dana LLP One Century Tower 265 Church Street, P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508 Counsel for Petitioner Linda Y. Cheng Joseph H. Hunt Anthony P. Nicastro Jonathan A. Robbins (ARGUED) United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent ______________ OPINION* ______________ HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Zakaria Sheriff petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA dismissed Sheriff’s appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge finding him removable as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) committed within five years of the date of his admission to the United States. We will deny Sheriff’s petition for review. I Sheriff immigrated to the United States from Guinea on July 26, 2009. In December 2013, he was convicted of two counts of attempted criminal simulation in Tennessee.1 In June 2015, Sheriff was convicted of theft by deception in violation of 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3922(a)(1) and conspiracy to commit theft by deception in violation of 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 903(c), based on conduct that occurred in Pennsylvania on September 22, 2013. Sheriff was served with a notice to appear and admitted the * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 39-14-115 (Criminal Simulation), 39-12-101 (Criminal Attempt). 2 allegations therein while denying the charge of removability. Considering both the Tennessee and the Pennsylvania convictions, the IJ found Sheriff removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). On appeal to the BIA, Sheriff argued that neither the Tennessee nor the Pennsylvania convictions are for CIMTs. The BIA concluded that the Pennsylvania theft by deception offense is a CIMT and sustained removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).2 II We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “Where, as here, the BIA issues a written decision on the merits, we review its decision and not the decision of the IJ.” Baptiste v. Att’y Gen., 841 F.3d 601, 605 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the BIA’s determination was made in “an unpublished, non-precedential decision issued by a single BIA member, we do not accord that determination any deference.” Id. at 606. “At most, [such] decisions are persuasive authority.” Mahn v. Att’y Gen., 767 F.3d 170, 173 (3d Cir. 2014). III Sheriff first challenges the BIA’s determination that his Pennsylvania theft by deception conviction is ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals