Emmanuel Dwah Tiah v. Todd Blanche

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Emmanuel Tiah’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) based on North Dakota convictions for violating protection orders. The court held that the actual protection orders were not required in the administrative record and that the record otherwise established removability by clear and convincing evidence. The court also rejected or declined to review Tiah’s remaining claims concerning termination of proceedings, cancellation of removal, due process, and a domestic-violence waiver.

Holdings

1. The actual protection orders were not required to sustain a charge of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii); the relevant content of the orders may be established through other documentary evidence in the record.
2. The record established by clear and convincing evidence that Tiah was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii).
3. Removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) is determined through a circumstance-specific inquiry rather than the categorical or modified categorical approach.
4. The later dismissal of the post-disposition no-contact order did not require termination of the removal proceedings because the statute does not require a valid no-contact order to remain in effect when immigration authorities take custody of the noncitizen or serve the Notice to Appear.
5. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision denying cancellation of removal.
6. Tiah did not establish a due process violation based on the immigration judge's handling of his right to counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the government must submit the actual protection orders to establish removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii).
2. Whether the administrative record established by clear and convincing evidence that the protection orders satisfied the statutory requirements for removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii).
3. Whether the eventual dismissal of a protection order required termination of the removal proceedings.
4. Whether the immigration judge violated Tiah's due process rights by failing to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel.
5. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal.
6. Whether Tiah was prima facie eligible for a domestic-violence waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(7)(A).

Disposition

writ_denied