Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-60227 Summary Calendar _ SMART IMHANSIONAN IYANOBOR, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. - - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals A41-542-100 - - - - - - - - - - April 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Smart I. Iyanobor, a Nigerian citizen, asserts that the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") erred denying h
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-60227 Summary Calendar _ SMART IMHANSIONAN IYANOBOR, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. - - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals A41-542-100 - - - - - - - - - - April 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Smart I. Iyanobor, a Nigerian citizen, asserts that the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") erred denying hi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60227
Summary Calendar
__________________
SMART IMHANSIONAN IYANOBOR,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A41-542-100
- - - - - - - - - -
April 1, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Smart I. Iyanobor, a Nigerian citizen, asserts that the
Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") erred denying his
application for waiver of inadmissiblity, filed pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1182(h). We have reviewed the record and find that the
BIA's affirmance of the Immigration Judge's decision denying the
Iyanobor’s application was supported by substantial evidence and
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-60227
-2-
was neither arbitrary nor capricious. See Opie v. INS,
66 F.3d
737, 739 (5th Cir. 1995).
The petition for review is DENIED.