Franklin Beresford v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 20-2792 FRANKLIN MICHAEL BERESFORD, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A057-406-863) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars “Q” Golparvar Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on April 23, 2021 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, Circuit Judges, and NOREIKA, * District Judge (Opinion Filed: July 21, 2021) * The Honorable Maryellen Noreika, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation. OPINION * NOREIKA, District Judge Petitioner Franklin Michael Beresford seeks review of a final order by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s determination that he is removable from the United States and ineligible for cancellation of removal. For the following reasons, the petition will be denied. I. Background Beresford is a native and citizen of Guyana who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on July 22, 2008. From approximately April 2012 through April 2014, Beresford worked as a cargo handler at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in Queens, New York. By his own admission, during this wo-year period, Beresford stole mail from airplanes and acted as a lookout so that others could do so. A.R. 352–53. On November 14, 2016, Beresford pled guilty to mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. He was convicted in the Eastern District of New York on February 20, 2018 and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. A. Proceedings Before the Immigration Court The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings on July 31, 2018, by serving Beresford with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). The NTA * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 charged that he was removable because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after admission for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). In support of the charge of removability, the Government submitted, inter alia, the Presentence Investigation Report (“the PSR”) prepared in connection with Beresford’s conviction. Although the first Immigration Judge to decide the issue sustained the charge of removability and ordered his removal, A.R. 210, Beresford successfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which remanded the case for additional fact-finding on the issue of whether he committed the crime of mail theft within five years of his admission, A.R. 145–46. After remand, a second Immigration Judge held a hearing on September 18, 2019, at which he made several comments regarding the status of the case before him. The Immigration Judge suggested that the Government submit a Form I-261 to indicate specifically when the crime was committed and added that “on the I-261 you just need to indicate that . . . the offense described in allegation number 4 was committed between this date and this date, …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals