Nyamwange v. Attorney General of United States , 496 F. App'x 206 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-3924
    ___________
    RICHARD MICHREKA NYAMWANGE,
    Petitioner
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Respondent
    ____________________________________
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    (Agency No. A029-043-107)
    Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    August 22, 2012
    Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: September 12, 2012)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Richard Michreka Nyamwange, a citizen of Kenya, was admitted to the United
    States as a lawful permanent resident in 1988. In 2008, after a jury trial in the
    Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas at Monroe County, he was convicted of sexual
    assault in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3124.1 and aggravated indecent assault without
    consent in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3125(a)(1). He was sentenced to a term of
    two and a half to five years in prison for the former offense and five years of probation
    for the latter. Subsequently, the Government charged Nyamwange as removable as an
    alien convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) (relating
    to rape), and in 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(43)(F) (a crime of violence, as set forth in 8 U.S.C.
    § 16, for which the alien received a sentence of at least one year in prison). Ultimately,1
    the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) held that Nyamwange was removable on the
    basis that his sexual assault offense under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3124.1 was a categorical
    aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(43)(F).
    Nyamwange appeals. Our jurisdiction is circumscribed because Nyamwange is
    removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1252(a)(2)(C). However, we retain jurisdiction over constitutional claims and
    questions of law, including the main question at issue in this appeal, namely, whether
    Nyamwange was convicted of an aggravated felony. See Pierre v. Attorney Gen. of the
    United States, 
    528 F.3d 180
    , 184 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 8 U.S.C.
    § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D)).
    1
    As the parties are aware, the procedural history of this case before this agency
    was not uneventful. However, we will not recount the history in detail, for it is not
    relevant to the outcome of this case.
    2
    Pertinent to our analysis is Nyamwange’s conviction for sexual assault, for which
    he received a sentence of more than one year in prison. He was convicted under a statute
    that provides that “. . . a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person
    engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant without
    the complainant’s consent.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3124.1. We have already analyzed this
    statute in detail and concluded that a conviction under it constitutes a crime of violence
    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).
    See Aguilar v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 
    663 F.3d 692
    , 700-04 (3d Cir. 2011).
    We reject Nyamwange’s arguments to the contrary (including his arguments about why
    he believes our decision in Aguilar is incorrect, see Reich v. D.M. Sabia Co., 
    90 F.3d 854
    , 858 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that a panel of the court is bound by a published
    decision of a prior panel absent intervening authority or amendments to the relevant
    statutes or regulations)). Accordingly, we hold that the BIA did not err in ruling that
    Nyamwange was removable. We will deny the petition for review.2
    2
    We also have considered Nyamwange’s arguments about the Government’s
    alleged waiver or abandonment, during the administrative proceedings, of the charge on
    which Nyamwange was found removable. We conclude that the arguments are without
    merit. We review the decision of the BIA, which ruled on the charge (which the
    Government had included in the notice to appear). The BIA has been delegated authority
    by the Attorney General, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1, who is the respondent in this case, and
    who is charged with the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1). Furthermore, we are unaware of any
    authority that holds that any deficiency in briefing by the Government during the
    administrative process requires an Immigration Judge, the BIA, or us to deem a charge
    waived or abandoned.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-3924

Citation Numbers: 496 F. App'x 206

Judges: Hardiman, Per Curiam, Roth, Smith

Filed Date: 9/12/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023