Manjinder Kumar v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 21-11619 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11619 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MANJINDER KUMAR, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A076-859-740 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11619 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11619 Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Manjinder Kumar seeks review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigra- tion Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of re- moval, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). After careful review, we deny his petition. I. Kumar, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States in 2000 as a refugee. In 2004, his status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Secu- rity issued Kumar a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him as removable under the INA. The NTA alleged that Kumar had been convicted in March 2018 of family violence battery, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1, and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprison- ment. Based on this conviction, the NTA alleged that Kumar was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because he was con- victed of an aggravated felony; under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), because he was convicted of a crime of domestic violence; and un- der 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), because he violated a protective or- der under which he was enjoined. Kumar moved to terminate his removal proceedings, admit- ting that he had been convicted of violating Georgia law but argu- ing that his conviction did not render him removable. He argued USCA11 Case: 21-11619 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 3 of 9 21-11619 Opinion of the Court 3 that the conviction was not an aggravated felony because he was only sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining “aggravated felony,” a conviction for which renders a person ineligible for cancellation of removal, as “a crime of violence . . . for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year”). He also argued that he was not removable under the other two provisions the NTA cited. The government responded that Kumar’s conviction was for an aggravated felony because he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, even though he was only required to serve a term of 60 days. In support of its position, the government provided ev- idence documenting Kumar’s conviction. This included a docu- ment from the Superior Court of Floyd County entitled “Final Dis- position Misdemeanor with Probation” (the “Final Disposition”), which indicated that Kumar was adjudicated guilty of family vio- lence battery and that his “sentence” was “12 months to serve 60 days.” AR at 595 (capitalizations omitted). 1 The document stated: “The Defendant is adjudged guilty or sentenced under First Of- fender/Conditional Discharge . …

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