Pauline Nadege Binam v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 20-10630 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10630 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-209-641 PAULINE NADEGE BINAM, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 1, 2020) Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pauline Binam, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming, in relevant part, the Immigration USCA11 Case: 20-10630 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). In her petition, Binam argues that: (1) the BIA legally erred in finding that her previous conviction for possession of stolen goods, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-71.1, qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) under the categorical approach; (2) her previous conviction for concealment of merchandise, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-72.1(a), is not a CIMT; (3) the BIA legally erred in applying Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga, 26 I. & N. Dec. 847 (BIA 2016), retroactively; and (4) she is statutorily eligible for the petty offense exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii). After careful review, we deny her petition. The INA strips appellate courts of jurisdiction to review, in relevant part, “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b . . . of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Nevertheless, we still retain jurisdiction over “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Whether a previous conviction qualifies as a CIMT is a legal question we review de novo. Gelin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1236, 1240 (11th Cir. 2016). Retroactivity is also a question of law that we review de novo. Rendon v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 972 F.3d 1252, 1264 n.10 (11th Cir. 2020). “When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the [IJ’s] decision” or explicitly agrees with the 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10630 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 Page: 3 of 8 IJ’s findings. Juene v. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). We do not reach issues not considered by the BIA. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). First, we are unpersuaded by Binam’s argument that her North Carolina conviction for possession of stolen goods did not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. The Attorney General has discretion to grant cancellation of removal to nonpermanent residents who show, inter alia, that they have not been convicted of a CIMT. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229b(b)(1)(C). While undefined by statute, we’ve said that a CIMT “involves [a]n act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary ...

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