Shehu v. Ashcroft ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2227
HANNATU SHEHU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-189-297)
Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chidi A. Ogolo, OGOLO & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C.; Kele C.
Onyejekwe, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior
Litigation Counsel, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hannatu Shehu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions this
court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ), which
found that Shehu’s conditional status as a lawful permanent
resident was properly terminated.
We conclude that the Attorney General has met his burden of
establishing that the facts alleged in Shehu’s petition to remove
the conditions are not true and that the petition was properly
denied. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(D) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1216.4(d)(2)
(2003). After reviewing the record, we hold that the IJ’s finding
of removability is supported by substantial evidence. See Mendes
v. INS, 197 F.3d 6, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1999) (IJ’s denial of petition
to remove conditional status on grounds of fraudulent marriage is
reviewed for substantial evidence).
We reject Shehu’s argument that the Attorney General erred in
allowing her to file a second Form-I-751 petition, as we conclude
that the statute allows the Attorney General some flexibility in
construing the applicable time limits. See Matter of Nwokoma, 20 I.
& N. Dec. 899, 902 (BIA 1994). We lack jurisdiction to review the
IJ’s denial of a request for voluntary departure, as affirmed by
the Board. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (2000).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We grant the
Attorney General’s unopposed motion to strike a portion of the
2
reply brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3