Tam Pham v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 442 F. App'x 62 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-1023
    TAM DUY PHAM,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals
    Submitted:   July 7, 2011                   Decided:    August 5, 2011
    Before MOTZ and    SHEDD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dev A. Kayal, WEBB & KAYAL, Chartered, Silver Spring, Maryland,
    for Petitioner.   Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Richard
    M. Evans, Assistant Director, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Office of
    Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tam    Duy     Pham,      a   native         and     citizen      of     Viet    Nam,
    petitions      for     review      an     order        of    the     Board      of     Immigration
    Appeals     (“Board”)        dismissing          his       appeal    from     the      immigration
    judge’s order finding him removable for having been convicted of
    an    aggravated       felony,      under        Immigration          and    Nationality         Act
    (“INA”)     § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii),                 
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1227
    (a)(2)(A)(iii)
    (West 2005 & Supp. 2011), as aggravated felony is defined under
    INA     §§ 101(a)(43)(B),               101(a)(43)(U),             and    for        having     been
    convicted       of      a    controlled           substance          offense,           under    INA
    § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1227
    (a)(2)(B)(i).                                      We deny the
    petition for review.
    Under         INA          § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii),                     
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1227
    (a)(2)(A)(iii),              an    alien        is    removable        for       having   been
    convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission.
    Under    INA    § 101(a)(43)(B),             
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1101
    (a)(43)(B)            (West
    2005    &   Supp.      2011),      an     aggravated          felony       includes       “illicit
    trafficking in a controlled substance . . . including a drug
    trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18)[.]”
    In addition, a conviction for a conspiracy to commit a drug
    trafficking          crime    is    also     an       aggravated         felony.          See     INA
    § 101(a)(43)(U); 
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1227
    (a)(43)(U).                                Under 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(2) (2006), a drug trafficking crime means any felony
    punishable      under        the   Controlled           Substances          Act.        Under    INA
    2
    § 237(a)(2)(B)(i),               
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1227
    (a)(2)(B)(i),             an    alien    is
    removable for having been convicted of a controlled substance
    offense at any time after admission.
    Although           this    court        lacks      jurisdiction        to    review    a
    final      removal      order         based     on    a      finding    that     the      alien    was
    convicted         of        an       aggravated          felony,       this      court       retains
    jurisdiction to determine whether Pham is an alien and whether
    he stood convicted of an aggravated felony.                                    See Ramtulla v.
    Ashcroft, 
    301 F.3d 202
    , 203 (4th Cir. 2002).                               We do not defer to
    the    Board’s      determination              that      a   particular       state       conviction
    qualifies as an aggravated felony.                           See Soliman v. Gonzales, 
    419 F.3d 276
    ,        281       (4th     Cir.           2005)      (recognizing           that     an
    interpretation of a state criminal statute is not within the
    Board’s authority or expertise).
    We conclude that in this instance, Pham’s conviction
    for conspiracy to distribute less than ½ ounce of marijuana, in
    violation of 
    Va. Code Ann. § 18.2
    –256 (2009), qualifies as both
    an     aggravated           felony      and     a     controlled         substance         offense. *
    Accordingly,           because          Pham     was         removable     for       having       been
    convicted      of      an    aggravated         felony,        we   deny      the    petition      for
    review.       We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal      contentions           are    adequately           presented     in       the   materials
    *
    Pham acknowledged he was a native and citizen of Viet Nam.
    3
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    PETITION DENIED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1023

Citation Numbers: 442 F. App'x 62

Judges: Hamilton, Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 8/5/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023