[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 31, 2008
No. 08-10780 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A42-468-996
NICHOLAS MICHAEL SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(December 31, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Michael Singh, a native and citizen of Jamaica, through counsel,
seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) final order of removal
and decision to dismiss his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order denying
his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CAT), INA §§ 208, 241, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).
Singh was born April 19, 1985,1 and was admitted to the United States in
1991 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2000, Singh pled guilty in Florida circuit
court to 1 count of armed burglary, 2 counts of third-degree grand theft, and 2
counts of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and was sentenced to 364 days of
imprisonment, 2 years of community control, and 3 years of probation. In 2000,
Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) charged Singh with removeability
under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral
turpitude, and under INA § 237(a)(2)(C), as an alien convicted of a firearm
offense. Thereafter, Singh filed an application for cancellation of removal under
INA § 240A(a), which was granted, and the proceedings against him were
terminated.
1
Singh testified that he was born on April 19, 1985. However, his prison and arrest
records list his birth date as April 19, 1984.
2
However, in 2003, Singh violated the conditions of his community control,
which the Florida circuit court then revoked and sentenced him to 6.6 years in
prison. INS then charged him with removeability under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii),
as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony (burglary) for which a sentence of at
least one year was imposed.
On appeal, Singh argues that (1) the conviction of a minor as an adult in
state court is not a conviction for immigration purposes; (2) res judicata barred the
government from re-charging him with immigration violations based on the same
conviction for which he previously was granted cancellation of removal; and (3)
the BIA erred in finding that he failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility
for deferral of removal under the CAT. Singh also states in conclusory fashion and
without citation to legal authority that treating his convictions as an adult, when he
was only 15 years old, as convictions for immigration purposes violates his right
to equal protection.
When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the
extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, with regard to the res judicata issue the
BIA partially agreed with the IJ’s findings but also made additional observations
so we will review the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions on that matter. As for the other
issues pertaining to Singh’s juvenile status and request for CAT relief, the BIA did
3
not expressly adopt or agree with the IJ’s decision, so we will review only the
BIA’s decision on those matters.
To the extent that the BIA’s decision was based on a legal determination, our
review is de novo. Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247-48 (11th Cir.
2001). The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial-
evidence test, and we “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.’” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283-84 (citation omitted).
Additionally, INA § 242(a)(2)(C) sets forth the following limitations on
judicial review of final orders of removal against criminal aliens:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . and except as
provided in subparagraph (D), no court shall have jurisdiction to
review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable
by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section
. . . 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Section 242(a)(2)(D), in turn, provides as follows:
Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this
chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial
review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional
claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with
an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Prior to the Real ID Act of 2005, Pub.L.No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, we
interpreted § 1252(a)(2)(C) as limiting our judicial review of removal orders
4
entered against criminal aliens to whether a petitioner was “(1) an alien (2) who
[was] removable (3) based on having committed a qualifying offense.” Brooks v.
Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2002). However, pursuant to the Real ID
Act, we now retain jurisdiction also to consider “constitutional claims or questions
of law” raised by a petitioner. See 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D).
I. Conviction as an Adult in State Court
As an initial matter, an appellant’s brief must include an argument
containing “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the
authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed.R.App.P.
28(a)(9)(A). Thus, an appellant’s simply stating that an issue exists, without
further argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and
precludes our considering the issue on appeal. Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381,
1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998). Singh’s simple statement that our treating his
conviction as a conviction for immigration purposes would violate his right to
equal protection, without further explanation or discussion, did not sufficiently
raise the issue on appeal, and thus it is abandoned. Id. Accordingly, we will refrain
from considering the issue on review.
Singh also argues that, while Florida law permits a 15 year-old to be charged
and convicted as an adult, federal law only allows 15 year-olds to face adjudication
in juvenile proceedings, which are administrative in nature and are not considered
5
convictions for immigration purposes. According to Singh, the Federal Juvenile
Delinquency Act (FJDA) standards should apply to determine whether an act is a
delinquency or a crime, and under the FJDA because Singh’s act was not a crime
of violence, had he been tried in federal court, he would not have been eligible for
transfer to adult court.
Under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), an alien who is convicted of an aggravated
felony, such as burglary, at any time after admission is deportable. 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). A conviction is defined as:
a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if
adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where–
(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has
entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted
sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and
(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or
restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.
INA § 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). Whether a state’s conviction of
a minor in adult court is considered a conviction for immigration purposes is a
matter of first impression in this Circuit. However, several other circuits have
addressed the issue, all holding that a conviction in adult court is a conviction for
immigration purposes, no matter how old the alien was at the time of the offense.
6
In Vieira Garcia v. I.N.S., 239 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 2001), the petitioner was
17 years old at the time of the offense and he argued that even though he was
convicted as an adult in Rhode Island court, because of his age, his offense should
be considered a juvenile delinquency and not a conviction for immigration
purposes. Vieira Garcia, 239 F.3d at 411-12. The First Circuit held that because
the INA’s definition of conviction was clear and unambiguous, it was bound by the
state court’s determination to adjudicate the petitioner as an adult, noting that “if
Congress had wanted the INS to follow the FJDA at all times, it would have so
stated.” Id. at 413-14. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the FJDA did not apply in
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2007), holding that
a 16 year-old’s state court conviction as an adult constituted a conviction under
INA § 101(a)(48)(A). Finally, in Savchuck v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 119, 122 (2nd
Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit held that the definition of conviction under
§ 1101(a)(48)(A) includes state court convictions and “does not sanction
disregarding them because of the theoretical possibility that criminal conduct
might be treated differently by federal authorities.”
We follow the plain reading of § 1101(a)(48)(A), as well as the First,
Second, and Ninth Circuits, and hold that Singh’s conviction as an adult in Florida
court is a conviction for immigration purposes, even though he was a minor at the
time. We deny Singh’s petition for review in this regard.
7
II. Res Judicata
Singh argues that when a defendant violates his probation or community
control, he is not then incarcerated for the violation, but for the underlying offense,
and therefore the IJ erred in determining that the cause of action allowing the new
removal proceedings against Singh was the violation of probation, not the actual
conviction. Thus, he asserts res judicata bars the government from recharging him
because the new removal charges resulted from the same cause of action as the
previous charges already ruled upon when he initially was granted cancellation of
removal.
Res judicata bars the filing of a claim when the following elements are
present: (1) there is a final judgment on the merits; (2) the decision was rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity with them,
are identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both
cases. Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999).
Generally, if a case arises out of the same “nucleus of operative fact” as a former
case, the two cases are the same for res judicata purposes. Id. at 1239. However,
“res judicata does not bar a claim that was not in existence at the time of the
original action unless the facts underlying the claim were actually raised in that
action.” In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
8
Because the INA defines an aggravated felony as a theft or burglary offense
for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G),
and because Singh had not been sentenced to such a term of imprisonment until
after his violation of community control, the Government’s claim – that he was
removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony for which a sentence of at
least one year was imposed – was not in existence when Singh was initially granted
cancellation of removal. Thus, Singh’s violation of his community control and then
being resentenced to a term of more than one year’s imprisonment gave rise to a
new cause of action that was not previously available, and therefore it is not barred
by res judicata. Accordingly, we deny Singh’s petition for review on this basis.
III. CAT Relief
Singh argues that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that he was ineligible
for CAT relief because he showed, through testimony and documentary evidence,
that he will more likely than not be subject to torture upon removal to Jamaica.
The Real ID Act divests us of jurisdiction to review any final order of
removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a
criminal offense covered in § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), unless the alien raises
constitutional claims or questions of law. INA §§ 242(a)(2)(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). However, under the Real ID Act, we do have
jurisdiction to review claims where the alien challenges the application of an
9
undisputed fact pattern to a legal standard, and “whether a particular fact pattern
amounts to torture requires a court to apply a legal definition to a set of undisputed
or adjudicated historical facts.” Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 500 F.3d 1315,
1322 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).
To be entitled to relief under the CAT, an applicant must establish that it is
“more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “Torture” is defined as
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third
person information or a confession, punishing him or her
for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or
coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
In assessing whether it is more likely than not that an applicant would be
tortured in the proposed country of removal, the following should be considered:
(1) evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant; (2) evidence that the
applicant could relocate to a part of the country where he is not likely to be
tortured; (3) evidence of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights within
10
the country of removal, where applicable; and (4) other relevant information
regarding country conditions. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3).
The facts Singh presented do not show that he suffered past torture in
Jamaica or that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to
Jamaica. Singh’s testimony about his cousin’s alleged beating by the police lacked
any specificity and he did not show any flagrant or mass violations of human rights
within Jamaica. The articles and U.S. Department of State documents he presented
showed that Jamaican deportees may not fit easily into Jamaican society but they
did not demonstrate widespread human rights violations specifically targeted at
criminal deportees.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
discern no reversible error. Singh’s petition for review is denied.
DENIED.
11