Njoku v. Gonzales ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1924
REMI CHIDE NJOKU,
Petitioner,
versus
TOM RIDGE, Secretary of Homeland Security;
CALVIN MCCORMICK, District Director of
Homeland Security; ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Attorney General,
Respondents.
No. 05-1031
REMI CHIDE NJOKU,
Petitioner,
versus
TOM RIDGE, Secretary of Homeland Security;
CALVIN MCCORMICK, District Director of
Homeland Security; ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A71-794-440)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jaime W. Aparisi, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Remi Chide Njoku, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was
found removable for willfully misrepresenting or concealing a
material fact to obtain a change in immigration status. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2000). The immigration judge concluded after
a hearing that the Government had borne its burden of showing
removability by clear and convincing evidence. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(3)(A) (2000). The immigration judge then scheduled a
hearing on any applications for relief that Njoku might wish to
pursue. When neither Njoku nor his counsel appeared on the
scheduled hearing date, the immigration judge entered the final
order of removal in absentia.
Njoku appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) the immigration judge’s order finding him removable. Njoku
also filed a motion to reopen the in absentia final order of
removal. The Board affirmed and adopted the immigration judge’s
order finding Njoku removable as charged, affirmed the in absentia
order of removal, and denied the motion to reopen. Njoku petitions
this court for review of that order in No. 04-1924. Having
reviewed the administrative record and the decision of the Board,
we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding of
removability. To obtain reversal of a determination of
removability, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented
was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find
- 3 -
the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We conclude that the evidence here does
not compel a contrary result. Accordingly, Njoku’s challenge to
the finding of removability entitles him to no relief.
In No. 04-1924, Njoku also challenges the Board’s denial
of his first motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the
Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005);
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). In No. 05-1031, Njoku
seeks review of the Board’s denial of his second motion to reopen
the in absentia order of removal. Having reviewed the record and
the Board’s ruling, we find that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying that motion.
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review in these
appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 4 -