Okoronkwo v. Gonzales

Filing 920070806

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60441 Summary Calendar BROWN EKELEDO OKORONKWO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A27 172 234 -------------------Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The prior opinion of this Court is withdrawn and the following is substituted. Brown Ekeledo Okoronkwo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion for reconsideration. First, Okoronkwo argues that the BIA incorrectly determined that his state conviction for aggravated assault, which had been vacated, was still valid for immigration purposes. Because the

appellant did not appeal the BIA's decision upholding the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

No. 06-60441 -2immigration judge's deportation order, the only decision before us is the BIA's denial of the appellant's motion for reconsideration. Thus, rather than reviewing the BIA's legal

findings de novo, we review its decision to not reconsider its earlier determination under the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard. Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th We must affirm the BIA's decision

Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

unless it is "capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary." Id. Here, the BIA adhered to precedent that it Therefore, regardless of the

reasonably believed to be valid.

actual status of Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804, 814 (5th Cir. 2002), the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for reconsideration. Second, Okoronkwo argues that the immigration judge erred in denying his request for a hardship waiver under § 216(c)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). Our Court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to grant reconsideration of its decision that Okoronkwo was not entitled to a waiver under § 1186a(c)(4)(B). F.3d 471, 474-75 (5th Cir. 2004). DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378