Robson De Maria v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1205 ___________ ROBSON C. DE MARIA, a/k/a Robson Cavalcante De Maria, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A214-203-531) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 8, 2020 Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 17, 2020) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Robson De Maria petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Appeals (BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review. De Maria, a citizen of Brazil, entered the United States in 2014 as a visitor. In 2018, he was charged as removable for overstaying his admission period. Initially he proceeded pro se, and an Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charge of removability. De Maria applied for adjustment of status based on his marriage in 2016 to a United States citizen. He also applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After a hearing, at which De Maria was represented by counsel, the IJ denied relief. The IJ found that De Maria was not a credible witness and concluded that he was ineligible to adjust his status because there was “reason to believe” that he was inadmissible as a drug trafficker. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C). In making this determination, the IJ relied on a criminal complaint and related documents filed by authorities in Brazil and obtained by the Government. A.R. at 201-232. In the alternative, the IJ found that De Maria did not warrant adjustment as a matter of discretion. The IJ denied the asylum application as untimely and noted that De Maria presented no testimony in support of his requests for withholding of removal and CAT relief and instead relied only on the record. The IJ determined that he had not met his burden for relief and denied the applications. De Maria then filed a counseled appeal to the BIA, contesting only the IJ’s denial of his application to adjust his status. The BIA upheld the IJ’s determination that there 2 was reason to believe that De Maria had participated in drug trafficking and rejected his arguments that the admission of the evidence of his drug trafficking violated his right to due process. The BIA did not address the IJ’s alternative holding that De Maria was not entitled to adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. De Maria filed a timely petition for review, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. De Maria spends many pages of his brief challenging the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT, but he did not challenge the IJ’s denial of relief on appeal to ...

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