Georgina Owusu v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A099-380-248 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999917760].. [16-1167, 16-1168]

Appeal: 16-1167

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1167

GEORGINA OWUSU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

No. 16-1168

YAW BOATENG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

August 12, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 26, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 16-1167

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioners.
Benjamin
C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S.
Hogan, Assistant Director, Ashley Martin, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1167

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Georgina Owusu
and Yaw Boateng, natives and citizens of Ghana, seek review of
two separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing their appeals from the immigration judge’s denial of
their applications for cancellation of removal. ∗
On

appeal,

the

Petitioners

first

argue

that

the

agency

erred in concluding that they failed to establish the requisite
good moral character required for a grant of cancellation of
removal.

The

Attorney

General

may

cancel

the

removal

of

a

nonpermanent resident alien if the alien (1) has been physically
present in the United States continuously for at least 10 years;
(2)

has

had

good

moral

character

during

that

time

period;

(3) has not been convicted of certain enumerated offenses; and
(4) establishes that removal would result in “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative.

8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1) (2012); Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 403 n.1
(4th Cir. 2005).

∗

Although the immigration judge also denied Owusu’s
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture, Owusu does not challenge
the denial of these forms of relief on appeal.
She has
therefore waived appellate review of these issues. See Ngarurih
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).

3

Appeal: 16-1167

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/26/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports
the

agency’s

finding

that

the

Petitioners

were

statutorily

precluded from establishing good moral character pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) (2012) (providing that “[n]o person shall be
regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character
who,

during

the

period

for

which

good

moral

character

is

required to be established, is, or was . . . one who has given
false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under
this chapter.”).

See Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200, 203 (4th

Cir. 2011) (noting that the “determination that an alien is per
se ineligible to establish the good moral character necessary
for cancellation of removal is essentially a legal determination
involving the application of law to factual findings” and that
“our

review

necessarily

of

the

limited”

agency’s
and

must

factual
be

determinations

upheld

is

if

by

“supported

substantial evidence from the record as a whole” (alterations
and

citations

omitted)).

We

therefore

uphold

relief for the reasons stated by the Board.
16-1167

(B.I.A.

Feb.

1,

2016);

In

re

the

denial

of

In re Owusu, No.

Boateng,

No.

16-1168

(B.I.A. Feb. 1, 2016).
Additionally,

the

Petitioners

argue

that

the

immigration

judge erred in failing to sua sponte recuse himself and that the
Board erred in dismissing their due process arguments on the
ground that the immigration judge’s statements were not made on
4

Appeal: 16-1167

Doc: 25

the record.

Filed: 08/26/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

We conclude that the Board did not err in declining

to address the alleged off-the-record statements in light of the
Petitioners’ failure to raise the issue before the immigration
judge.

“[T]he failure to raise an issue before the [immigration

judge] properly waives the argument on appeal to the [Board].”
Torres de la Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013, 1023 (10th Cir.
2007) (declining to consider argument that alien failed to raise
before

[the

immigration

judge]

deemed procedurally barred).
Petitioners’

due

process

and

that

Board

subsequently

In any event, our review of the

claim

reveals

demonstrate the requisite prejudice.

that

they

failed

to

See Anim v. Mukasey, 535

F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320
(4th Cir. 2002).
We therefore deny the petitions for review.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED

5