Jahmai James v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-3354 ___________ JAHMAL JAMES, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A210 089 320) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 12, 2019 Before: MCKEE, COWEN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 12, 2019) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Jahmai James, a citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his application for cancellation of removal. We will deny the petition for review. James came to the United States in 2005 at age 16 as a visitor to join his mother, who was living here. He finished high school in the United States, and later became a conditional lawful permanent resident, based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, from whom he later divorced. James was arrested and pleaded guilty to some firearms offenses in New Jersey in 2015. In 2017, James was served with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging him with being removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(C) [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C)] for having been convicted of a firearm offense. He was also charged with having been convicted of an aggravated felony under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)], as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(F) [8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F)], a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. A.R. 799. However, on June 23, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) withdrew the aggravated felony charge. A.R. 799.1 James applied for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) [8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)].2 1 The NTA also alleged that his conditional permanent resident status had been terminated; an amended NTA listed this as an additional charge of removability. A.R. 795. However, during the pendency of immigration proceedings, James succeeded in having the status reinstated and the conditions removed, making him a lawful permanent resident. A.R. 146, 158-59. 2 That section provides: The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien-- (1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less 2 After James’s case was assigned to an IJ for a merits hearing, the IJ determined that James’s conviction was an aggravated felony, which precluded him from applying for cancellation of removal. In the alternative, however, the IJ determined that James did not merit cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. On appeal, the BIA agreed that James did not merit cancellation as a matter of discretion and declined to consider whether he had been convicted of an aggravated felony. James then filed a timely, pro se ...

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