Ehiabhi Egboh v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A075-564-777 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999997440].. [16-1603]

Appeal: 16-1603

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1603

EHIABHI EGBOH,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Court.

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

January 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant
Director, Vanessa M. Otero, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1603

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ehiabhi Egboh, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for
review of the immigration judge’s order concurring with an asylum
officer’s

determination

that

Egboh

failed

to

establish

a

reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Nigeria. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(g)(1) (2012).
Pursuant

to

8

U.S.C.

§

1252(a)(2)(C)

(2012),

we

lack

jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated
felony.

We retain jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or

questions of law.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson v.

Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526–27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571
F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional
claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized
by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”).
Upon review, we find that the claims raised by Egboh are not
sufficiently colorable to invoke this court’s jurisdiction.

See

Lumataw v. Holder, 582 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2009) (“To form the
basis

of

judicial

review

under

§

1252(a)(2)(D),

the

alleged

underlying constitutional or legal question must be colorable;
that is, the argument advanced must, at the very least, have some
potential

validity.”

Accordingly,
jurisdiction.

we

(internal

dismiss

the

quotation

petition

for

marks
review

omitted)).
for

lack

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2

Appeal: 16-1603

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
PETITION DISMISSED

3