Case Name: Peterneil S. BARROWS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-19
Citations: 318 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: No. 08-1607
Parties: Peterneil S. BARROWS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
Peterneil S. BARROWS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1607.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 27, 2009.
Decided: March 19, 2009.
George E. Crimarco, Law Offices of George E. Crimarco, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Kat-sas, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Peterneil S. Barrows, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision, which found him removable as an alien convicted of a crime of domestic violence and as an aggravated felon and ordered him removed to Jamaica.
Before this court, Barrows contends that the Board erred in finding that he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Based on our review of the record, we agree that the 2003 conviction under Virginia law for domestic assault and battery against a family member amounted to a "crime of violence" and was therefore an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006). The Board therefore properly upheld the charge of removability on this ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2006); In re: Barrows (B.I.A. Apr. 22, 2008).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.