Germain Ndongo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920091027

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1401 GERMAIN DIDIER NDONGO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 7, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Germain Didier Ndongo, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Germain Cameroon, Didier for Ndongo, review of a an native order his and of citizen the Board from of of the petitions Appeals Immigration ("Board") dismissing appeal immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated felony. Because Ndongo was found removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, under 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction "to review factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Ndongo] [i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of an aggravated felony." (4th Cir. 2002). Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 Once we confirm these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we can only consider "constitutional claims or questions of law." See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007). Based on our review of the record, we find that Ndongo's conviction under Virginia law for assault and battery amounted to a "crime of violence" 2 and was therefore an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) (2006); 18 Accordingly, Ndongo is indeed an alien of an aggravated felony, and U.S.C. 16(a) (2006). who has been convicted 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for review absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. To the extent that Ndongo argues that the immigration court did not provide him with proper notice of his hearing in violation of his due process rights, see Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. se 1978) (stating we that find the that court the liberally construes pro pleadings), immigration judge properly complied with the notice requirements set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1229(a) (2006) by sending a hearing notice to the last known address provided by Ndongo. We therefore find that the immigration judge properly declined to rescind the in absentia removal order and reopen Ndongo's proceedings on this ground. Finally, Ndongo claims that he served in the United States * Army * and has lost his Cameroonian citizenship as a Ndongo implies that he is entitled to some sort of legal status in the United States based on his alleged military service. Ndongo, however, cannot meet the good moral character requirement for naturalization in light of his status as an aggravated felon. See 8 U.S.C. 1427(a), (e), 1440 (2006); O'Sullivan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 453 F.3d 809, 812-16 (7th Cir. 2006). 3 result. To the extent that this claim can be considered a question of law, we find that Ndongo is not entitled to relief. This argument has no bearing on whether Ndongo is entitled to reopening or whether he is removable from the United States. Instead, Cameroon requested Ndongo as the raises country his a challenge of to the designation that to of he the removal--a hearing. designation Additionally, during removal extent that Ndongo's military service prevents his removal to Cameroon, the Attorney General is authorized to select an alternative country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(2) (2006). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the contentions the court materials would decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 4

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?