Onyekaba v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/9/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Feb-09 PM 02:46
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
CHUKWUKA GABRIEL
ONYEKABA,

)
)
)
Petitioner
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP
)
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, )
)
Respondent
)

Case No. 4:16-cv-00822-MHH-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 9, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation and advised the parties that if they wished to object to the report,
they must file objections within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 20). The magistrate judge
recommended that the Court dismiss this action as moot, to the extent that the
petitioner was seeking release from custody; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction any claim
pertaining to a review of the removal order regarding the petitioner; and deny any
request for naturalization that the petitioner may have attempted to make. No party
has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). A district

court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual
findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9
(11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988);
Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
After consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation, the Court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge, and the
Court ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has
evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district
judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a COA or state the reasons why
such a certificate should not issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may
issue only when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” This showing can be established by demonstrating that
“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner” or that the issues were “adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For procedural
rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition
Page 2 of 3

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the court’s
procedural ruling was correct. Id.
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the resolution of the
claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA
with respect to any claims.
The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this February 9, 2017.

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3