Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/903-f-3d-272-748591337
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:37:04+00:00

Document:
The government issued Tima a notice to appear in 2003 and amended it in 2005 and 2010. It charged that he was removable for marriage fraud (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) ), for termination of conditional-permanent-resident status (§ 1227(a)(1)(D)(i) ), and for a moral-turpitude conviction (§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) ).
On petition for review, this Court did not reach the fraud-waiver issue. But we granted Timas petition because the judge and Board had erred in sustaining the charge for termination of conditional-permanent-resident status. Tima v. Atty Gen., 603 Fed.Appx. 99, 103 (3d Cir. 2015). We remanded for the Board to consider whether the § 1227(a)(1)(H) fraud waiver extends to the moral-turpitude charge. Id. at 103-04.
On remand, the Board held that the fraud waiver does not reach removal for a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Tima, 26 I. & N. Dec. 839, 843-44 (BIA 2016). The Boards holding followed three of our sister circuits precedents addressing the same or similar provisions of the Act. Id. at 844 (citing Fayzullina v. Holder, 777 F.3d 807, 815-16 (6th Cir. 2015); Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2013); Gourche v. Holder, 663 F.3d 882, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2011) ).
Tima again petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction to review his final order of removal because Timas petition raises an issue of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (a)(2)(D). We review de novo. Alimbaev v. Atty Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 2017).

References: § 1227
 v. 
 § 1227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1252
 v.