Davion Sinclair v. Attorney General United States
20-2482
| 3rd Cir. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Petitioner Davion A. L. Sinclair, a Jamaican national and lawful permanent resident admitted in 1992, was convicted in 2019 in Lawrence County, PA, of receiving stolen property and possession of an altered firearm.
- The Government charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated-felony theft) and § 1227(a)(2)(C) (firearm offense).
- Sinclair applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting he would face persecution or torture in Jamaica based on his bisexuality.
- An IJ sustained removability and denied all forms of relief; Sinclair appealed to the BIA claiming inadequate consideration of country‑conditions evidence.
- Sinclair was given a filing deadline for a brief, requested an extension on the deadline date, but the BIA denied the extension because the request lacked proof of service.
- The BIA held Sinclair waived any challenge to removability that was not raised on appeal, affirmed the denial of relief, and dismissed the appeal; Sinclair petitioned for review in this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review removability based on ongoing state-court challenge to convictions | Sinclair: removability is erroneous because he is contesting the Lawrence County convictions in state court | Government/BIA: Sinclair never raised this claim to the BIA, so it was waived | Court: Lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); claim unexhausted and cannot be reviewed |
| Review of admission of conviction-related evidence at master calendar hearing | Sinclair: certain conviction-related evidence was improperly admitted | Government/BIA: Issue was not presented to the BIA and thus waived | Court: No jurisdiction to consider the claim for failure to exhaust |
| BIA denial of extension to file appellate brief | Sinclair: BIA abused its discretion in denying extension | Government/BIA: Extension properly denied because request lacked proof of service; Sinclair does not explain error | Court: No abuse of discretion demonstrated; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2012) (failure to exhaust an issue before the BIA deprives the court of jurisdiction)
- Hoxha v. Holder, 559 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2009) (exhaustion satisfied when notice of appeal sufficiently apprises the BIA of the issue)