Opinion ID: 3025176
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Second Appeal Before the BIA

Text: 6 The BIA dismissed Nyakatura’s second appeal, holding that his conviction for bribery constitutes a CIMT subjecting him to removal. The BIA also agreed with the IJ’s holding that what Nyakatura had done amounts to an aggravated felony, because it “relat[es] to commercial bribery” and the term of imprisonment was at least one year. Finally, the BIA agreed that having been convicted of an aggravated felony made Nyakatura ineligible for a waiver and thus ineligible for adjustment of status. II JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The IJ had jurisdiction over the removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10 and 1003.14(a). The BIA had jurisdiction over Nyakatura’s appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3). We have jurisdiction over Nyakatura’s petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). We review de novo the IJ’s and the BIA’s interpretation of the law, including the question of whether a particular crime falls within the definition of an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).1 Park v. Attorney General, 476 F.3d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 2006).