Kingsley Ogideh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A095-236-158 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998472284] [10-1128]

Kingsley Ogideh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1128 Document: 23

Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1128 KINGSLEY KELECHI OGIDEH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Liam Ge, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, P. Michael Truman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1128 Document: 23

Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Kingsley Nigeria, petitions Appeals Kelechi for Ogideh, of a an native order and of citizen Board of of

review

the

Immigration

("Board")

dismissing

Ogideh's

appeal

from

his order of removal and denying his motion to remand his case to the immigration court. the petition for review. First, we reject Ogideh's claim that his due process rights were violated when he was not provided with an approved, edited, and signed transcript of his removal hearing and the immigration judge's oral decision prior to submission of his appellate brief to the Board. To succeed on a due process claim For the reasons that follow, we deny

in an asylum or removal proceeding, an alien must establish two closely linked elements: rendered it fundamentally (1) that a defect in the proceeding unfair and (2) that the defect

prejudiced the outcome of the case.

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d

243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-22, 324 (4th Cir. 2002). outcome of his Because Ogideh did not demonstrate how the administrative appeal was impacted by this

failure, the Board properly rejected this claim. Ogideh next challenges the Board's construing his

motion to remand as a motion to reopen, based on In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), and denying it because Ogideh failed to substantially comply with Lozada's requirements for an 2

Case: 10-1128 Document: 23

Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Page: 3

ineffective

assistance

of

counsel

claim.

We

have

reviewed

Ogideh's argument, the relevant record, and the Board's analysis of this issue, and hold the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). The

Board was further correct in concluding that reopening to allow an alien to pursue discretionary relief is not permitted when that relief had been explained to the alien, and the alien had been afforded the opportunity to pursue such relief. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2010); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408-09 (4th Cir. 2005). The transcript of Ogideh's

administrative hearing reflects this is precisely what happened here. Accordingly, substantially for the we deny the petition by the for review In re:

reasons

stated

Board.

Ogideh (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2009).

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. PETITION DENIED

3