Ronny Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090219

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1786

RONNY RAMON SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

January 28, 2009

Decided:

February 19, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aroon Roy Padharia, LAW OFFICE OF AROON R. PADHARIA, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ronny Ramon Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge's decision and affirming the finding that he is removable as an aggravated felon based on his state conviction for

misdemeanor petit larceny. Although Sanchez contends on appeal that the crime of petit larceny is a misdemeanor under Virginia law and therefore cannot be considered an aggravated felony, this argument is

foreclosed by our decision in Wireko v. Reno, 211 F.3d 833, 834 (4th Cir. 2000) ("Under the plain language of [the statute

defining aggravated felony], there is no requirement that the offense actually have been a felony, as that term is

conventionally understood."); see also United States v. Graham, 169 F.3d 787, 790-93 (3rd Cir. 1999) (holding that an alien who had been convicted of misdemeanor petit larceny under New York law and sentenced as an to the maximum felon sentence as of one in year 8 was

removable

aggravated

defined

U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006)). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

argument

because

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3