SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Ramon Williams v. Attorney General United States



                                PRECEDENTIAL

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
      FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
           _____________

          Nos. 16-3816 & 17-1705
              _____________

      RAMON ANDREW WILLIAMS
      a/k/a Andrew Denton Williamson
            a/k/a Ramon Williams,
                    Petitioner

                     v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF
              AMERICA,
                Respondent
 ____________________________________

   On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
       Board of Immigration Appeals
         Agency No: A018-687-061
     Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston
 ____________________________________

         Argued November 8, 2017
    Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge,
                 and BRANN, District Judge*

              (Opinion Filed: January 19, 2018)


Thomas H. Lee, II
Argia J. DiMarco
Ryan M. Moore
Christopher J. Mauro                      [ARGUED]
Dechert
2929 Arch Street
18th Floor, Cira Centre
Philadelphia, PA 19104

Seymour James, Jr.
Adriene Holder
Maria E. Navarro
Hasan Shafiqullah
Ward Oliver
Sarah Gillman
Whitney W. Elliott
Legal Aid Society
Immigration Law Unit
199 Water Street
3rd Floor
New York, NY 10038

*
  The Honorable Matthew W. Brann of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting
by designation.
                              2
      Counsel for Petitioner



Chad A. Readler
        Acting Assistant Attorney General
Terri J. Scadron
        Assistant Director
Shahrad Baghai
Christina Greer                           [ARGUED]
United States Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
P.O. Box 878
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044

      Counsel for Respondent
                   ________________

                         OPINION
                     ________________

SMITH, Chief Judge.

       In this consolidated proceeding, Ramon Williams asks
us to consider whether a prior conviction under Georgia’s
forgery statute, Ga. Code Ann. § 16-9-1(a) (2006), constitutes
an aggravated felony conviction for purposes of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Because we conclude that the Georgia

                               3
conviction is an offense “relating to . . . forgery,” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(R), Williams is properly subject to removal as
an aggravated felon, and we will therefore deny the petitions
for review.

                              I.

       Williams, a citizen of Guyana and a lawful permanent
resident of the United States, immigrated to this country in
1970, when he was thirteen months old. He has no family in
Guyana; his parents, grandparents, siblings, and children are
all United States citizens. In 2006, he pleaded guilty in
Georgia state court to five counts of first degree forgery
pursuant to section 16-9-1(a) of the Georgia Code. He initially
received a sentence of two years in prison, which later was
reduced to one year.

       In 2013, Williams received a notice to appear charging
him as removable as a result of having been convicted of an
aggravated felony.      See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Appearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in New Jersey,
he contested removability.1 The IJ determined that the Georgia
forgery conviction rendered Williams deportable as an
aggravated felon and otherwise denied relief. Williams
appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).


1
  Williams also sought asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ
denied these forms of relief and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Williams does not challenge
the denial of those claims in his petitions before this Court.
                              4
Before the BIA, he argued, inter alia, that the Georgia forgery
statute is broader than generic forgery because it criminalizes
the use of a fictitious name when signing a document and
because the statute does no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top