Manosalva-Pena v. Mukasey , 302 F. App'x 164 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1051
RICARDO ERNESTO MANOSALVA-PENA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008
Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aroon Roy Padharia, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E.
Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ricardo Ernesto Manosalva-Pena, a native and citizen
of Peru, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision, which found him removable as an
alien convicted of a crime of domestic violence and as an
aggravated felon and ordered him removed to Peru.
Before this court, Manosalva-Pena contends that the
Board erred in finding that he was convicted of an aggravated
felony. Based on our review of the record, we agree that his
third conviction under Virginia law for domestic assault and
battery against a family member amounted to a “crime of
violence” and was therefore an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(F) (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006). The Board
therefore properly upheld the charge of removability on this
ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2006); In re:
Manosalva-Pena (B.I.A. Aug. 22, 2007). Additionally, we reject
Manosalva-Pena’s argument that he was improperly charged with
removability as an aggravated felon under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Accordingly, we 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
2