Germain Ndongo v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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.
October 7, 2009
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Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen.
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
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
§ 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
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
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).
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
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
decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
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?