ADOUS v. KEISLER, 250 Fed.Appx. 563 (4th Cir. 2007)

Ibrahim Abdosh ADOUS, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-2048.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: September 21, 2007.
Decided: October 9, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A27-669-918).

Charles M. Wall, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Joshua E. Braunstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Ibrahim Abdosh Adous, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying Adous’ application for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Adous was convicted of assault and battery of a family member under Va. Code § 18.2-57.2. He contends that because battery does not require bodily injury or intent to inflict bodily injury under Virginia law, his crime is not one of moral turpitude. It is unnecessary for us to resolve this point, however, because Adous was not convicted merely of battery. Rather, he was convicted of assault and battery pursuant to a statute that has been construed to require an intent to inflict bodily injury on the victim. See Leal v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 525,

Page 564

559 S.E.2d 874, 878 (2002), rev’d on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Leal, 265 Va. 142, 574 S.E.2d 285 (2003). Adous’ failure to successfully inflict the harm he intended does not lessen the weight given to his crime. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning provided by the Board. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.