UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 20-2439 ____________

ALEXIS FERNANDO BARRADAS JACOME, Petitioner

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________

On Petition for Review of an Order from the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (A204-796-985) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Golparvar ____________

Argued on April 26, 2022

Before: HARDIMAN, NYGAARD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 30, 2022) Stephen F. Raiola [Argued] Peter St. Tienne Wolff Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti 301 Grant Street One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Petitioner Brian M. Boynton John S. Hogan Todd J. Cochran Craig A. Newell, Jr. [Argued] U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ___________

OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Alexis Fernando Barradas-Jacome filed this petition for review challenging his expedited removal by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) based on his Pennsylvania conviction for receiving stolen property. The petition raises two issues of precedential import, one jurisdictional and one substantive. For the reasons that follow, we hold that we have jurisdiction to review Barradas-Jacome’s legal argument in the first instance because DHS’s expedited removal procedures do not allow aliens to challenge the legal basis for their removal.

2 We also hold that Barradas-Jacome’s state conviction is an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). So we will deny his petition for review. 1

I

A native and citizen of Mexico, Barradas-Jacome entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2004 when he was six years old. He received approval to remain under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in October 2013, but failed to renew his DACA status after it expired. In October 2019, Barradas-Jacome pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3925(a), 2 and was sentenced to 12–24 months’ imprisonment.

In January 2020, DHS initiated expedited removal proceedings against Barradas-Jacome by serving him with a Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO). The Notice of Intent—one side of DHS Form I-851— informed Barradas-Jacome that he was charged with being deportable under the INA as an alien “convicted of an aggravated felony” because he had been convicted of receiving 1 The Court appointed Stephen F. Raiola of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti to represent Barradas-Jacome pro bono in this appeal. Mr. Raiola has ably discharged his responsibilities. 2 Barradas-Jacome also pleaded guilty to (1) resisting arrest, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5104; (2) use or possession of drug paraphernalia, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32); and (3) carrying a firearm without a license, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6106(a)(1).

3 stolen property. App. 30 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1101(a)(43)(G)). The Notice of Intent also advised Barradas-Jacome that he would be removed under expedited procedures, “without a hearing before an Immigration Judge,” and indicated that he had ten days to “respond to the [removal] charges in writing to the [DHS] address provided on the other side of this form.” 3 App. 30.

The same day, Barradas-Jacome responded by filling out the reverse side of Form I-851 as instructed. The fo