Ibrahim Abdosh Adous v. Commonwealth, 559 S.E.2d 874, 878 Va. App. 2002 , rev’d on other grounds,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2048
IBRAHIM ABDOSH ADOUS,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A27-669-918)
Submitted: September 21, 2007 Decided: October 9, 2007
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles M. Wall, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Joshua E. Braunstein, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ibrahim Abdosh Adous, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying
Adous’ application for relief under former section 212(c) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). For the
reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Adous was convicted of assault and battery of a family
member under Va. Code § 18.2-57.2. He contends that because
battery does not require bodily injury or intent to inflict bodily
injury under Virginia law, his crime is not one of moral turpitude.
It is unnecessary for us to resolve this point, however, because
Adous was not convicted merely of battery. Rather, he was
convicted of assault and battery pursuant to a statute that has
been construed to require an intent to inflict bodily injury on the
victim. See Leal v. Commonwealth, 559 S.E.2d 874, 878 (Va. App.
2002), rev’d on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Leal, 574 S.E.2d 285
(Va. 2003). Adous’ failure to successfully inflict the harm he
intended does not lessen the weight given to his crime.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning
provided by the Board. 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 --