Jason Wright v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-1166 ______ JASON ANTHONY WRIGHT, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A206-473-310) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ____________ Argued March 11, 2020 Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 16, 2020) Ingrid D. Johnson [ARGUED] Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath 105 College Road East P.O. Box 627, Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08542 Counsel for Petitioner Imran R. Zaidi [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ____________ OPINION* ____________ PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. Jason Anthony Wright, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Wright was admitted to the United States in 2007 on a nonimmigrant visa, and he overstayed. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, and Wright conceded removability. In 2016 and 2017, Wright was convicted in New Jersey state court of three drug crimes involving the manufacture and distribution of or intent to manufacture heroin. At the removal proceedings, Wright sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection on the grounds that he would suffer violence as a bisexual man upon his return to Jamaica. Finding that Wright had been convicted of at least one particularly serious crime, the Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that by statute Wright was ineligible for all forms of relief except CAT deferral of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). For that request, the IJ concluded that Wright did not demonstrate that he would be personally at risk of torture or that the government would consent or acquiesce to his torture. Wright administratively appealed * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 only the denial of the CAT deferral, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a final order of removal that adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. In petitioning for review of the BIA’s order, Wright presents only legal challenges, which receive de novo review. See Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2007). In exercising jurisdiction over Wright’s petition, the scope of review consists of the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), but it may include portions of the IJ’s opinion “only where the BIA has substantially relied on that opinion.” Camara v. Att’y Gen., 580 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir. 2009); see also S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 543 (3d Cir. 2018); cf. Pieschacon-Villegas v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 303, 310 (3d Cir. 2011) (“When the BIA issues its own decision on the merits, rather than a summary affirmance, we review its decision, not that of the IJ.”). For the reasons below, we will deny ...

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