Kingsley Ogideh v. Eric Holder, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

Download PDF
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 Doc. 0 Case: 10-1128 Document: 23 Date Filed: 11/24/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1128 KINGSLEY KELECHI OGIDEH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

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?