Submitted April 1, 2019
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA-1: A091-540-338) Immigration Judge: Daniel A.
A. Gonzalez Cheryl Lin Bastarrika Soto Gonzalez &
Somohano Counsel for petitioner
L. Browning Jessica E. Burns Rosanne M. Perry Counsel for
Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and SILER, JR. [*] Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
HARDIMAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Nkomo petitions for review of her final order of removal. Her
petition requires us to decide a question of first impression
in this Court: whether a notice to appear that fails to
specify the time and place of an initial removal hearing
deprives an immigration judge of jurisdiction over the
removal proceedings. We hold that it does not.
also seeks review of the denials of her application for
withholding of removal and her request for protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). W e are unpersuaded by
the merits of her withholding claim and we lack jurisdiction
over her CAT claim. So we will deny Nkomo's petition in
part and dismiss it in part.
lawful permanent resident of the United States and a citizen
of Zimbabwe, Nkomo was convicted in 2017 of conspiracy to
commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1342
and 1349. This conviction is for an "aggravated
felony," which makes Nkomo removable and ineligible for
most relief. About a month after she was sentenced to time
served for that offense, the Government
initiated these removal proceedings.
much of the Immigration Judge's analysis, the Board of
Immigration Appeals found Nkomo ineligible for withholding
because her wire fraud conviction was for a
"particularly serious crime" under 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Although that finding did not foreclose
CAT protection, the Board denied that too, adopting the
IJ's finding that Nkomo had not shown a probability she
would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the
government of Zimbabwe. Nkomo filed this timely petition for
review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
Board had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§
1003.1(b)(3) and 1003.2(c). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a). Because Nkomo is a criminal alien, our
review is limited to colorable legal and constitutional
claims. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). We review the
Board's decision, but where "the BIA adopt[s] and
affirm[s] the IJ's decisions and orders as well as
[conducting] an independent analysis, we review both the
IJ's and the BIA's decisions and orders."
S.E.R.L. v. Att'y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 543 (3d
Cir. 2018) (quoting Ordonez-Tevalan v. Att'y
Gen., 837 F.3d 331, 340-41 (3d Cir. 2016)). "[W]e
look to the IJ's opinion ...