Filed: Nov. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1854 FRANKLIN CHUKUYEM OGI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 16, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Chukuyem Ogi, Petitioner Pro Se. Surell Brady, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1854 FRANKLIN CHUKUYEM OGI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 16, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Chukuyem Ogi, Petitioner Pro Se. Surell Brady, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1854
FRANKLIN CHUKUYEM OGI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 16, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin Chukuyem Ogi, Petitioner Pro Se. Surell Brady, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Franklin Chukuyem Ogi, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s finding that Ogi was
not credible and that he failed to demonstrate extreme hardship
so as to establish eligibility for special rule cancellation of
removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (2012). Because Ogi
raises no constitutional claims or questions of law, we lack
jurisdiction to review the denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D) (2012); Jean v. Gonzales,
435 F.3d 475,
479-80 (4th Cir. 2006). We accordingly dismiss the petition 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.
PETITION DISMISSED
2