2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-30-2008 

# Ap anp a v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3009

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ap anp a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1302. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1302I M G- 0 5 5 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 3009

___________ S AHE E D ADE WALE AP ANP A, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n R evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 45- 454- 470) I m m i gr at i on J udge: W al t erD ur l i ng

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A PR I L 23, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, FU E N T E S A N D G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Saheed A panpa , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of N i ger i a born i n 1982, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1993. H e w as admi t t ed as a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent . I n 2005, A panpa w asA p a p n a d o e s n o t p u rs u e th e c itiz e n s h ip c la im h e ra is e d in th e a g e n c yp ro c e e d in g s . 1 convi ct ed of c r i m i nal pos s es s i on of a f or ged i ns t rum enti n t he s econd de gr ee unde r § 170. 25 of the N ew Y or k Penal C ode. T he G overnm ents ubs equent l ychar ged hi m as r emovabl e forhavi ng comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l onyunder§ 101( a) ( 43) ( R ) of the Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (“IN A ”). A panpa a r gued i n admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs t hathe w as a ci t i zen w ho had not comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l ony . T he I J , how ever , concl uded t o t he contr aryand or der ed hi m r emoved. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , ci t i ng D r akes v. Z i m s ki , 240 F. 3d 246 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , aff i r m ed. A panpa f

i l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew , w hi ch the G overnm entas ks us t o di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rAp a p n a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . See G ar ci a v. A t t or neyG en. of the U ni t ed St at es , 462 F. 3d 287, 291 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( expl ai ni ng t hatourj ur i s di ct i on ext ends t o cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forr evi ew , i ncl udi ng t he ques t i on w hethera pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony ) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overA papna’ s l egal a rg u m e n t th a t h e w a s n o t a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n . S e e id . 1 D es pi t e hi s ar gum ent s t o t he contr ary , A panpa w as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fel ony . A n aggr avat ed fe l onyi ncl udes “an of fens e r el at i ng t o . . . for gery. . . forw hi ch t he t erm of i m pr i s onm enti s atl eas tone y ear . ” 8 U . S. C . § 101( a) ( 43) ( R ) . A panpa w as convi ct ed of c r i m i nal pos s es s i on of a f or ged i ns t rum enti n t he s econd de gr ee unde rN ew Y ork P enal C od e § 1 70 . 25 . S ect i on § 1 70 . 25 reads:I n D r akes , as her e, t he ci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e w er e notcl ear . See D r akes , 240 2 F .3 d a t 2 4 7 (“ A t m in im u m , h e p ro v id e d a f a lse n a m e to th e p o lice a n d late r p led g u iltyto t w o count s of s econd- degr ee f or geryunderD el aw ar e s t at e l aw . ”) H ow ever , t he N ew Y or k Penal C ode pr ovi s i on, l i ke the D el aw ar e s t atut e, i s cons i der ed undert he form al c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h to d e ter m in e “ if it en c o m p a ss e s a c ts b e y o n d th o se su b jec t to p ro s e c u tio n u n d e r t h e f e d e ra l d e f

in itio n .” Id . a t 2 4 9 . A per s on i s gui l t yof cr i m i nal pos s es s i on of a f or ged i ns t rum enti n t he s econd degr ee w hen, w i t h know l edge thati ti s for ged and w i t h i nt entt o defr aud, dece i ve ori nj ur e another , he ut t er s orpos s es s es anyfor ged i ns t rum entof a ki nd s peci fi ed in s e c tio n 1 7 0 .1 0 . S e c tio n 1 7 0 .1 0 in c lu d e s c o m m e rc ial in stru m e n ts, c re d it ca rd s, d e e d s, w ill s, p u b lic
r ecor ds , w r i t t en i ns t rum ent s cr eat ed bya publ i c off i ce, pr es cr i pt i ons fordrugs , and the lik e . A s w e p re v io u slya c k n o w led g e d , “th e m e a n in g o f ‘f o rg e ry ’ in f

e d e ra l law is ambi guous . ” D r akes , 240 F. 3d at249. H ow ever , upon s tudy , w e conc l uded that C on gress w i shed to define forgeryi n the broadestsense byusi ng t he p hrase “an of fense
r el at i ng t o for gery . ” See i d. I n D r akes , w e cons i der ed a D el aw ar e s t atut e w hi ch 2 p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt th a t a p e rso n is g u iltyo f f o rg e ryw h e n , w ith th e in ten t to defr aud, dece i ve, ori nj ur e anotherper s on, t he per s on al t er s a w r i t t en i ns t rum entof anotherw i t houtauthor i t y , m ake ort r ans fer s a w r i t t en i ns t rum entt hatpurpor t s t o be that of anotherw ho di d notauthor i ze the ac t i on, or( es peci al l yper t i nentt o t hi s cas e) “pos s es s es a w r i t t en i ns t rum ent , know i ng t hati tw as m ade, compl et ed oral t er ed under circu m stan ce s co n sti tuti n g fo rge ry . ” 1 1 D el. C . § 8 6 1 . W e h eld th at th e D elaw are for gerys t atut e w as r el at ed t o for gery , and thatt he B I A ’ s deci s i on t hata convi ct i on under t he D el aw ar e s t atut e w as a convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fe l onyw as corr ect , w hetherv iew e d th ro u g h th e d e f e re n tial le n s o f

C h e v ro n v . N a tu ra l R e so u rc e s D e f e n se C o u n c il, 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 (1 9 8 4 ), o r n o t. S e e D ra k e s , 2 4 0 F .3 d a t 2 5 1 . T he N ew Y or k s t atut e i n t hi s cas e des cr i bes conductand i nt enti ncl uded i n t he D e law a re sta tu te in D ra k e s. O f p a rticu lar re lev a n c e , the sta tu tes a re m a rk e d lysim ilar in th e ir d e sc rip tio n o f

th e p o ss e ss io n o f

f e n se . A c c o rd in g ly , D ra k e s c o n tro ls th e re su lt i n th is cas e, and A panpa’ s convi ct i on forcr i m i nal pos s es s i on of a f or ged i ns trum enti n t he s econd de gr ee i s an off

ens e r el at i ng t o for gery . I ti s undi s put ed thatA panpa’ s r es ul t i ng t erm of i m pr i s onm enti s l ongert han one y ear . A panpa, t hen, w as convi ct ed of a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . H is b ro a d a rg u m e n ts re la tin g to u n f a ir n e s s d o n o t c h a n g e th e re s u lt. A cc o rdin g ly , alth o u g h w e d en ythe G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n to d ism iss A p ap n a’s p e titio n f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n , w e d e n yA p a p n a ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .