Ricardo Manosalva-Pena v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1051 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1051 RICARDO ERNESTO MANOSALVA-PENA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aroon Roy Padharia, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ricardo Ernesto Manosalva-Pena, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions Immigration Appeals for review ( Board ) of an order dismissing of his the Board from appeal of the immigration judge s decision, which found him removable as an alien convicted of a crime of domestic violence and as an aggravated felon and ordered him removed to Peru. Before this court, Manosalva-Pena contends that the Board erred in finding that he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Based on our review of the record, we agree that his third conviction under Virginia law for domestic assault and battery against a family member amounted to a violence and was therefore an aggravated felony. crime of See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006). The Board therefore properly upheld the charge of removability on this ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) Manosalva-Pena (B.I.A. Aug. 22, 2007). (2006); In re: Additionally, we reject Manosalva-Pena s argument that he was improperly charged with removability as an aggravated felon under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.