Filed: Apr. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-3-2006 Campbell v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2679 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Campbell v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1328. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1328 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinio
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-3-2006 Campbell v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2679 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Campbell v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1328. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1328 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinion..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-3-2006
Campbell v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2679
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Campbell v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1328.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1328
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
NO. 05-2679
____________________
GARY CAMPBELL,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board No. A37-777-481)
______________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 27, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 3, 2006)
________________________
OPINION
________________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Gary Campbell, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of a final
order of removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We will deny the
petition.
Campbell was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in
1982. In 1990, he was convicted of attempting to sell cocaine, and in 2002, he was
convicted of menacing in the second degree. Both convictions occurred in New York
state court. On March 12, 2002, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
issued Campbell a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) and charged him with removability.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Campbell was removable under §
237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because the 1990 drug conviction was for an aggravated felony. The
IJ further concluded that Campbell was removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), because he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral
turpitude, the drug crime and the menacing crime. The IJ also considered and rejected
Campbell’s argument that he was eligible for relief under former § 212(c) and § 240A of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. In a written opinion, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
Writing solely for the parties, we limit our discussion to our ratio decidendi. We
must first determine whether Campbell has committed two crimes of moral turpitude,
rendering him removable under § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii). Campbell does not contest that the
drug sale was a crime involving moral turpitude, but he argues that the menacing charge
did not involve moral turpitude. The BIA’s determination that menacing is a crime
involving moral turpitude “is entitled to Chevron deference.” See Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384
F.3d 84, 88 (3d Cir. 2004).
2
Campbell was convicted of menacing in the second degree under N.Y. Penal Law
§ 120.14, which provides:
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in
reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by
displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a
pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct
or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or
attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury,
serious physical injury or death . . . .
So long as all offenses under the statute would constitute crimes involving moral
turpitude, we need not look to the individual circumstances of Campbell’s offense. See
Partyka v. Ashcroft, 417 F.3d 408, 411 (3d Cir. 2005). Moral turpitude has been defined
as “conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of
morality and the duties owed other persons, either individually or to society in general.”
Knapick, 384 F.3d at 89. Other courts and the BIA have found offenses that involve
intentionally placing an individual in fear of physical injury to be morally turpitudinous.
See Chanmouny v. Ashcroft,
376 F.3d 810, 813-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that a crime
involved moral turpitude where the petitioner “was convicted of threatening to commit a
crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another.”); Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 361 F.
Supp. 2d 650, 659 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (citing Chanmouny); In re Ajami, 22 I. & N. Dec.
949, 951 (BIA 1999) (“[I]ntentional transmission of threats is evidence of a vicious
motive or a corrupt mind.”). In light of these decisions, we defer to the BIA’s
3
determination that Campbell has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude.
Because Campbell has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, the
decisive issue becomes whether he may simultaneously apply for relief under former §
212(c) and § 240A. The reason why Campbell needs both forms of relief may be
explained as follows. Campbell does not dispute that he is removable under §
237(a)(2)(A)(iii) because he has committed an aggravated felony (the drug sale).
However, because Campbell pled guilty to the crime prior to the repeal of § 212(c), the
Attorney General may waive removal under § 212(c).1 In order to prevail, Campbell must
not only receive § 212(c) relief from removability on the basis of the aggravated felony,
but he must also receive § 240A relief from removal on the basis of the two crimes of
moral turpitude. Because the conviction for the menacing crime occurred after the repeal
of § 212(c), Campbell cannot look to § 212(c) to avoid being removed due to two
convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude. Campbell therefore seeks to use §
240A, a provision currently in force, to avoid removal for the two crimes involving moral
turpitude.
Campbell is ineligible for relief under § 240A, which precludes cancellation of
removal for an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(a)(3). Under Rodriguez-Munoz v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2005), it is
1
Former § 212 (c) provided that the Attorney General could cancel removal of a lawful
permanent resident with certain convictions. The Supreme Court held in INS v. St. Cyr,
533 U.S. 289 (2001), that aliens who pled guilty to offenses prior to the repeal of § 212
(c) could still qualify for relief under the repealed provision.
4
irrelevant to the issue of § 240A relief that Campbell’s aggravated felony conviction (the
drug sale) was waived for purposes of § 212(c). In Rodriguez-Munoz, we explained that
although the petitioner’s earlier aggravated felony conviction was waived under § 212(c),
that conviction “remain[ed] an aggravated felony for purposes of precluding his
application for cancellation of removal under § 240A.” Id. at 249.
Because Campbell committed two crimes of moral turpitude, and because he is
ineligible for relief under § 240A, we deny the petition for review.
5
