George Martin v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Nos. 17-2524 & 17-3420 _____________ GEORGE MARTIN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A094-644-596) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 13, 2019 ______________ (Opinion Filed: September 16, 2019) Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. George Martin petitions this Court to review a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons set forth below, we will deny Martin’s petition for review.1 I. Martin was born in Sierra Leone in 1970. He fled the civil war there and entered the United States in 2004 as a refugee. In 2006, he pleaded guilty in Illinois state court to theft by deception and was sentenced to two years of probation. In 2008, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment. He was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $95,453.35. In February 2013, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Martin with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him with removability based on the 2006 and 2008 convictions. The NTA did not provide the date and time of the hearing but instead stated that information was forthcoming. Specifically, he was charged with two grounds of removability, for having been convicted of (1) two crimes involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) not arising out a single scheme of criminal conduct and (2) an aggravated felony that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000. 1 While, for ease of reference, we use the singular “petition,” we are reviewing both Martin’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal and his petition for review of the BIA’s decision dismissing his appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 2 Martin applied for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c), which gives the Attorney General discretion to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility of refugees “for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” In July 2013, an IJ held two evidentiary hearings at which Martin and his wife testified. His wife, who also is a refugee from Sierra Leone, testified about the difficulties she and her children would face if Martin were to be deported. The IJ exercised his discretion for the purpose of family unity and granted the adjustment of status, rendering Martin a lawful permanent resident. In December 2015, Martin pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to fraud on a financial institution, forgery, and identity deception. He was ...

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