Leroy Stuart v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 21-2865 ____________ LEROY ANGLOSON STUART, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A036-810-752) Immigration Judge: Jason L. Pope ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) (October 7, 2022) Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 20, 2022) ____________ OPINION ____________  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Leroy Stuart petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals finding him ineligible for waiver of removal under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We will deny the petition. I A native and citizen of Barbados, Stuart entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1983. About ten years later, he was convicted of multiple armed bank robberies and was sentenced to more than forty-six years’ imprisonment. In December 2020, after serving a federal sentence reduced by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), Stuart was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. The Department of Homeland Security charged Stuart as removable based on his federal convictions for bank robbery with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and carrying and use of a firearm during a bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The DHS also designated Stuart’s § 2113(d) convictions as crimes involving moral turpitude and aggravated felonies of theft and violence. Stuart conceded removability based on his firearms conviction, but he sought a waiver of inadmissibility under former § 212(c) of the INA. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge found Stuart removable because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony theft offense, an aggravated felony crime of violence, and two crimes involving moral turpitude. The IJ also determined Stuart was ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver because of his aggravated felonies. 2 After the hearing, Stuart applied for CAT relief, citing phone calls his family in Barbados received that threatened Stuart’s life. Stuart asserted fear of being tortured by his former criminal associates “as revenge for things I did to them” and for engaging in homosexual acts. A.R. 693. Following another hearing, the IJ denied Stuart CAT relief, and the BIA affirmed. Stuart filed this petition before he was removed to Barbados on June 9, 2022. II1 Stuart first argues the BIA erred when it found him ineligible for waiver of removal under § 212(c) of the INA. This argument fails for several reasons. As Stuart acknowledges at 43–44 of his opening brief, our decision in United States v. Johnson, 899 F.3d 191, 204 (3d Cir. 2018), forecloses his argument that his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) do not qualify as aggravated violent felonies. Even were that not the case, those convictions constitute aggravated theft felonies that …

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