2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-1-2014 

# S t eve n M e ns ah-Y

a w son v . Att or ne y Ge ne r al U nit ed S t a t es
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 14-1333

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S t e v e n M e n s ah-Y

a w s on v . Att or ney Ge ne r al U

nit e d S t a t e s " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1025. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/1025NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 4

- 1333

___________ STEVEN MENSAH

- YAWSON , Petitioner

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES , Respondent

____________________________________ On Petition for Revie w of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A 0 8 9

- 4 01

- 926 ) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 25, 2014 Before: HARDIMAN, NYGAARD and ROTH , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 1, 2014 )

___________ OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM Steven Mensah

- Yawson petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal of the order of removal against him. Fo r the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review.2 I. Mensah

- Yawson, a citizen of Ghana , initially entered the United States on a student visa in 2002

. Although h e completed his course of study in 2007 , he remained in the United States. In 2010, he was convicted of conspiring to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 . The offense underlying his conviction was a conspiracy to make, utter, and possess counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513( a). The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania sentenced him to time served and ordered him to pay $ 43, 645

. 98 in restitution to a number of identified victims

. 1 Shortly ther e after , but while his direct appeal was pending , Mensah

- Yawson was served with a notice to appear charging him as removab le pursuant to 8 U.S.C

. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for being a nonimmigrant who entered the United States and remained longer than permitted. He conceded removability as charged and sought cance llation o f removal and voluntary departure. After his criminal conviction became final, however,
t he Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Mensah

- Yawson with a Notice of Intent to Issue a Fin al Ad ministrative Removal Order based on his conviction of an aggravated felony defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 43) (U) . The DHS also sought to terminate his removal proceedings so that it could plac e him in administrative removal, and the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted DHS’s motion.

1 We affirmed his convictio n and sentence on direct appeal in United States v. Mensah

Yawson , 489 F. App ’x 606 (3d Cir. 2012).3

The DHS then filed a new notice to appear , charging Mensah

- Yawson as removable pursuant to the following sections : (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as a person who after admission was convicted of an aggravated felony defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M); (2) 8 U.S.C.§ 1227(a)(1 )(B) as a nonimmigrant who remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted; (3) 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) as a nonimmigrant who failed to maintain or comply with the conditions of the nonimmigrant status under which he was admitted; and (4 ) 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as a person who after admission was convicted of an aggravated felony defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U). The DHS later filed additional charge s , asserting that Mensah

- Yawson was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i ii) as an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission , and pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) as an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) committed within five years after th e date of admission. Mensa h

Yawson denied the aggravated felony and CIMT charges , but conceded removability under §§ 1227(a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(C)(i)

. Through his attorney, he also conceded that he was not eligible for special rule cancellation of removal , asylum , withholding or removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). However, he sought a continuance so that he could file a Form I

- 360 petition based on his previous marriage to an abusive United States citizen spouse. After his I

- 3 60 petition was denied by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service s (“USCIS”) , Mensah

- Yawson sought4

a further continuance so that he could appeal the USCIS’s decision. However, the IJ denied his request , sustained the charges, and ordered his removal to Ghana. In his appeal to the Board, Mensah

- Yawson argued that his conviction was not for an aggravated felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his removal hearings, that the IJ erred in denying a continuance to allow him to appeal the denial of his I

- 360 petition, that he was eligible for special rule cancellation, and that the IJ violated his procedural due process rights

. The Board first determined that Mensah

- Yawson had not demons trated compliance with Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), in bringing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim

. The Board next applied the “modified categorical approach” to determine that his conviction was for an a ggravated felony invo lving fraud or deceit and a loss to the victim s in excess of $10,000.00 , and it therefore affirmed the IJ’s decision that Mensah

- Yawson was removable as an alien convicted of aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and (U). Perplexingly, t h e Board also stated that it was affirming the IJ’s finding that Mensah

- Yawson wa s removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(R). 2 The Board also concluded that he had not demonstrate d

2 The DHS acknowledges in its brief that Mensah

- Yawson was not charged under subsection (a)(43)(R), and that the Board’s finding in that regar d is not a sufficient basis on which to affirm the order of removal. Because we deny the petition for review on the other grounds stated in the Board’s order, we conclude that the Board’s error in finding Mensah

- Yawson removable under § 1101(a)(43)(R) was harmless

. See Yuan v. Att’y Gen. , 642 F.3d 420, 427 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[W]e will view an error as harmless and not necessitating a remand to the BIA when it is highly probable that the error did not affect the outcome of the case.”).5

good cau se for receiving a continuance , and it affirme d the IJ’s determination that, as an aggravated felon, Mensah

- Yawson was not eligible for special rule cancellation. Lastly, the Board determined that Mensah

- Yawson had discussed his potential asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims with his attorn ey and decided to waive them. Accordingly, the Board dismissed his appeal. Mensah

- Yawson, pro se, petitions for review. II. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1) and review only the Board’s disposition except to the extent that the Board’s orde r defers to the IJ’s ruling

. S ee Huang v. Att’y Gen. , 62 0 F.3d 372 , 379 (3d Cir. 20 10 )

. In a case where the petitioner’s removal or der is based on a conviction of a controlled substance offense or an aggravated felony, our jurisdiction is limited to the review of constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)

- (D); Green v. Att’y Gen. , 694 F.3d 503, 506 (3d Cir. 2012). Mensah

- Yawson first contests the Board’s determination that he was convicted of

an aggravated felony as define d in § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), which covers offenses involving fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000.00. This is a question of law over which we have jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)

. Generally, when determining whether an alien’s conviction constit utes an aggravated felony, the c ourt may look only to the statutory definition of the offense and may not consider the particular facts underlying a conviction. Singh v. Ashcroft , 383 F.3d 144, 147

- 48 (3d6

Cir. 2004). There is an exception to this so

- called categorical approach, permitting a court to look beyond the face of the statute to charging documents, when “some but not all” convictions under a statute would satisfy the requirements of an aggravated felony. See id. at 1 60

- 62. Mensah

- Yawson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 371, for having con spir ed to commit an of

fense against the United States

. Section 371 creates a single conspiracy offense that can be committed in two different ways, United States v. Rigas , 605 F.3d 19 4, 208

- 09 (3d Cir. 2010), including “(1) conspiracy to commit a substantive offense proscribed by another statute (the ‘offense clause’); and (2) conspiracy to defraud the United States (the ‘defraud clause’),” United States v. Alston , 77 F.3d 713, 718 (3d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) . Mensah

- Yawson was convicted under the “offense clause” for conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 513(a), which criminalizes making, uttering, and possessing counterfeit securities , and is an offense involving fr aud or deceit

. S ee Conteh v. Gonzales , 461 F.3d 45, 60 (1st Cir. 2006) , cert. denied , 551 U.S. 1148 (2007). As demonstrated by his criminal restitution order, h is offense involved a loss to the victims of $43,645.98, which is greater than the threshold a mount for an offense to qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). S ee Nijhawan v. Att’y Gen. , 5 57 U.S. 29, 42

- 43 (200 9 )

. Accordingly, we agree with the Board that Mensah

- Yawson was convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in § 1101(a )(43)(M)(i). Additionally , because he was convi cted of a conspir acy, Mensah

- Yawson is removabl e under7

§ 1101(a)(43)(U ). See Al

- Sharif v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv. , 734 F.3d 207, 210 n.3 (3d Cir. 2013). Mensah

- Yawson also argues that the IJ v iolated his due process rights by failing to inform him of his right to apply for relief under the CAT

. This is a constitutional claim over which we have jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). W hile an a lien in removal proceedings generally has a d ue process right to be notified of the availability of CAT relief , see Valencia v. Mukasey , 548 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2008) , th ere was no violation here, as the record did not demonstrate Mensah

- Yawson ’s “apparent eligibility” for such relief and, in a ny case, he was already aware of its availability, s ee United States

v. Lopez

- Velasquez , 629 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)

. He also claims that the IJ violated his due process rights by denying his request for a continuance to appeal the denial o f his I

- 360 application. As “[t]he denial of a motion for a continuance is discretionary,” we do not have jurisdiction over this claim. Rachak v. Att’y Gen. , 734 F.3d 214, 216

- 17 (3d Cir. 2013) . Finally, w e lack jurisdiction to review Mensah

- Yawson’s re maining due process and legal claims , as they are not colorable. 3 See Sukwanputra v. Gonzales , 434 F.3d 627, 633

- 34 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing 8

3 These claims include d the following: (1) that the DHS did not have the authority to “compel” the IJ to terminate his initial removal proceedings; (2) the “change of venue” policy was violated; (3) there were inconsistencies in the rulings issued by the IJ’s in Cleveland, Ohio , and in York, Pennsylvania; (4) the Board denied him additional time to file a brief; (5) the Board denied him access to his complete transcript; and (6) the Board denied him the opportunity to file a reply to the DHS’s brief. None of these claims are su pported by the record or have arguable legal merit.8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)); see also Pareja v. Att’y Gen. , 615 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2010) (“To determine whether a claim is colorable, we ask whether it is immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Accordingly , we will deny the petition for review.

4 Although Mensah

- Yawson also claims that the Board erred in finding him removable as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude , the Board declined to make such a finding and it is not a ba sis for Mensah

- Yawson’s removal order.