The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-1607•Peterneil S. Barrows v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General
08-1607Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 19, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1607
PETERNEIL S. BARROWS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crimarco, LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E. CRIMARCO, P.A.,
Coral Gables, Florida, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas,
Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant
Director, Eric W. Marsteller, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Peterneil S. Barrows, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
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 Jamaica.
Before this court, Barrows 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 the 2003
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:
Barrows (B.I.A. Apr. 22, 2008).
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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.