Norma Aleman-Coreas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A042-481-208. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998742195]. [11-1639]

Appeal: 11-1639

Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/13/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1639

NORMA ELIZABETH ALEMAN-COREAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

November 22, 2011

Decided:

December 13, 2011

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Dunn Loring,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria
Yousif,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1639

Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/13/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Norma Elizabeth Aleman-Coreas, a native and citizen of
El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration

Appeals

(“Board”)

dismissing

her

appeal

from

the

immigration judge’s decision finding her removable as charged
and denying her application for cancellation of removal.
On appeal, Aleman-Coreas does not dispute the agency’s
finding that, based on her 1996 Virginia conviction for petit
larceny, she is removable as an alien, who within five years of
admission, was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006).

See

Accordingly, the issue is

now waived, see United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425, 427 n.1
(4th Cir. 2002), and we uphold the finding of removability on
this ground.
We also uphold the agency’s finding that Aleman-Coreas
failed to establish her eligibility for cancellation of removal.
To

establish

such

eligibility,

Aleman-Coreas

must

demonstrate

that she (1) has been a lawful permanent resident for not less
than

five

years;

(2)

has

continuously

resided

in

the

United

States for seven years; and (3) “has not been convicted of any
aggravated felony.”
Holder,

647

F.3d

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) (2006); see Salem v.

111,

114-15

(4th

Cir.),

filed, 80 U.S.L.W. 3098 (Aug. 17, 2011).
2

petition

for

cert.

Appeal: 11-1639

Document: 22

The

Date Filed: 12/13/2011

record

establishes

Page: 3 of 4

that

Aleman-Coreas

has

been

twice convicted of assault and battery in Virginia, in violation
of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-57.2 (LexisNexis 2009), a statute that
criminalizes both violent and non-violent conduct.

See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(F) (2006) (defining aggravated felony as including
“a crime of violence . . . for which the term of imprisonment
[is] at least one year”); United States v. White, 606 F.3d 144
(4th Cir. 2010) (holding that Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-57.2 does not
contain, as an element, the use of physical force, and therefore
court must apply modified categorical approach to discern if
defendant

committed

crime

of

violence).

In

light

of

“the

divisible nature” of Virginia’s assault and battery statute, the
agency properly placed the burden on Aleman-Coreas “to produce
evidence encompassed within the record of conviction — such as a
charging

document,

a

plea

agreement,

or

a

plea

colloquy

transcript — which demonstrates that [s]he pled guilty to, and
was convicted of, an offense falling outside the scope of the
aggravated

felony

definition.”

Salem,

(internal quotations omitted).
the

relevant

evidence

of

647

F.3d

at

119-20

We have held that “where . . .

conviction

is

in

equipoise,

a

petitioner has not satisfied h[er] statutory burden to provide
eligibility for relief from removal.”
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

deny

argument

the

Id. at 120.
petition

because
3

the

for
facts

review.
and

We
legal

Appeal: 11-1639

Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/13/2011

Page: 4 of 4

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

PETITION DENIED

4