Marya v. Gonzales

147 F. App'x 336
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 11, 2005
Docket05-1098
StatusUnpublished

This text of 147 F. App'x 336 (Marya v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marya v. Gonzales, 147 F. App'x 336 (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Barinder Singh Marya, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s decision ordering Marya’s removal for having been convicted of a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2000). We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board and the immigration judge did not err in finding that Marya’s conviction for assault and battery of a family member, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-57.2 (Michie 2004), constituted a crime of domestic violence under the immigration statutes and therefore made Marya subject to removal.

We also note that although Marya’s conviction was amended to simple assault, Marya has not shown that the amendment was related to or called into question the integrity of the merits of his original conviction. Thus, his original conviction may be considered for immigration purposes. Cf. Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir.1993) (“[Ujnless a conviction is vacated on its merits, a revoked state conviction is still a ‘conviction’ for federal immigration purposes.”); see also In re Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003) (“If, however, a court vacates a conviction for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings, the respondent remains ‘convicted’ for immigration purposes.”). No remand for further proceedings is necessary.

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

PICKERING
23 I. & N. Dec. 621 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 F. App'x 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marya-v-gonzales-ca4-2005.