Gbolahan Majekodunmi v. U.S. Attorney General


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

Download PDF
Case: 16-17694 Date Filed: 11/07/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-17694 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?