Gbolahan Majekodunmi v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Gbolahan Babagbemileke Majekodunmi. Decision: Dismissed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-17694

Date Filed: 11/07/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17694
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-208-011

GBOLAHAN BABAGBEMILEKE MAJEKODUNMI,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(November 7, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17694

Date Filed: 11/07/2017

Page: 2 of 2

Gbolahan Majekodunmi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for
review of an order affirming the denial of his applications for a waiver of
inadmissibility, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), and for an adjustment of status, id. § 1255(a).
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the findings of the immigration judge
that Majekodunmi failed to prove that his removal would cause extreme hardship
to himself or to his mother, a United States citizen. We dismiss Majekodunmi’s
petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review Majekodunmi’s petition. “[N]o court . . .
ha[s] jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of
[discretionary] relief [for a waiver of inadmissibility based on extreme hardship]
under section . . . 1182(i),” id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), unless the petition for review
presents “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Majekodunmi argues that the Board failed to “give[] sufficient weight to [his]
claims of undue hardship,” contests the adverse credibility finding of the
immigration judge, argues that his removal will cause undue hardship to his new
wife and child, see id. § 1182(i), and argues that the immigration judge erred by
denying his application for an adjustment of status, id. § 1255(a), but none of his
arguments present a constitutional issue or question of law.
We DISMISS Majekodunmi’s petition.

2