In re: Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003) (“If, however, a court vacates a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1098
BARINDER SINGH MARYA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A45-602-866)
Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 11, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfred L. Robertson, Jr., STEPHEN J. SHEEHY, III & ASSOCIATES,
Annandale, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director,
Bryan S. Beier, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
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) (“[U]nless 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
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

-- 3 of 3 --