FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IBRAHIM FARHAB BARE, No. 17-73269 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A073-436-746 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 7, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed September 16, 2020 Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Eugene E. Siler, * and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Siler * The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 BARE V. BARR SUMMARY ** Immigration Denying Ibrahim Bare’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that: 1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Bare’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(A)(2), constitutes a particularly serious crime barring withholding of removal; and 2) the IJ lacked jurisdiction to consider Bare’s request for adjustment of status in “asylum-only” proceedings. Bare, a native and citizen of Somalia, came to the United States as a stowaway, was placed in “asylum-only” proceedings for stowaways, and was granted asylum in 1997. Asylum-only proceedings are limited to determining eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). An IJ later granted the government’s motion to reopen in order to terminate Bare’s asylum grant based on his conviction. The IJ determined that he lacked jurisdiction to consider Bare’s request for an adjustment of status, and denied withholding of removal and CAT relief. The BIA affirmed. As a preliminary matter, the panel concluded that Bare exhausted his challenges related to the first factor of the test for whether a crime is particularly serious. The panel next concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. BARE V. BARR 3 concluding that Bare’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm was a particularly serious crime barring withholding of removal. First, the panel rejected Bare’s contention that the agency erred by not explicitly considering the elements of the offense, concluding that the agency’s analysis was sufficient under the circumstances. Second, the panel rejected Bare’s contention that the crime is a “status offense” and is, therefore, categorically excluded from being particularly serious. The panel noted that it would be anomalous if a conviction for the offense where the sentence is less than five years’ imprisonment was categorically excluded from being a particularly serious crime, but where the sentence is five years’ imprisonment or more, is defined as per se particularly serious by statute. Third, the panel concluded that it was proper for the IJ to consider the circumstances in which Bare came into possession of the relevant firearms, the effect of his business on the community, and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals