Ronny Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090219

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1786 RONNY RAMON SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.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 TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?