UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1786
RONNY RAMON SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 19, 2009
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aroon Roy Padharia, LAW OFFICE OF AROON R. PADHARIA, Falls
Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant
Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Jonathan Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronny Ramon Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision and affirming the finding that he is removable
as an aggravated felon based on his state conviction for
misdemeanor petit larceny.
Although Sanchez contends on appeal that the crime of
petit larceny is a misdemeanor under Virginia law and therefore
cannot be considered an aggravated felony, this argument is
foreclosed by our decision in Wireko v. Reno, 211 F.3d 833, 834
(4th Cir. 2000) (“Under the plain language of [the statute
defining aggravated felony], there is no requirement that the
offense actually have been a felony, as that term is
conventionally understood.”); see also United States v. Graham,
169 F.3d 787, 790-93 (3rd Cir. 1999) (holding that an alien who
had been convicted of misdemeanor petit larceny under New York
law and sentenced to the maximum sentence of one year was
removable as an aggravated felon as defined in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3