Aamir Shaikh v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-2727 _____________ AAMIR MOHAMMAD SHAIKH, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A071-961-636) Immigration Judge: Charles Conroy _______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 24, 2022 Before: McKEE, ∗ RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: June 7, 2023) _______________ OPINION ∗ _______________ ∗ Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022. ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. McKEE, Circuit Judge. Aamir Mohammad Shaikh petitions for review of a final order of removal. Shaikh contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals erroneously dismissed his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision by incorrectly concluding that: (1) Shaikh is removable for committing a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); 1 (2) he is not eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention 1 We reject Shaikh’s argument that the BIA erred by finding him removable for committing a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Our court has defined a “crime of child abuse” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as: [A]ny offense involving an intentional, knowing, reckless, or criminally negligent act or omission that constitutes maltreatment of a child or that impairs a child’s physical or mental well-being, including sexual abuse or exploitation. At a minimum, this definition encompasses convictions for offenses involving the infliction on a child of physical harm, even if slight; mental or emotional harm, including acts injurious to morals; sexual abuse, including direct acts of sexual contact, but also including acts that induce (or omissions that permit) a child to engage in ... sexually explicit conduct.... Mondragon-Gonzalez v. Att’y Gen., 884 F.3d 155, 158–59 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503, 512 (BIA 2008)). Shaikh was convicted under New York Penal Law § 130.40(2), which provides that an individual is guilty of criminal sexual act in the third degree when “[b]eing twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with a person less than seventeen years old.” Shaikh argues that his conviction under New York Penal Law § 130.40(2) is not a categorical match to the BIA’s definition of “a crime of child abuse” because it is a strict liability crime without the requisite mens rea component and it “does not establish a sufficiently high risk of harm to a child.” Pet’r’s Br. 19. Although New York Penal Law § 130.40(2) does not explicitly contain a mens rea requirement, it is not a strict liability crime because “New York law makes clear that ‘[a] statute defining a crime, unless clearly indicating a legislative intent to impose strict liability, should be construed as defining a crime of mental culpability.’” …

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