Uzoka v. Gonzales , 193 F. App'x 251 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2233
SUNDAY SONNY UZOKA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-595-488)
Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: August 7, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, Bruce A. Ross,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sunday Sonny Uzoka, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s ruling finding Uzoka
removable as charged. We review for substantial evidence the
Board’s finding that the Attorney General established by clear and
convincing evidence, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) (2000); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.8(a) (2006), that Uzoka was removable under 8 U.S.C.A.
§ 1227(a)(1)(A), (B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), for seeking to
procure a benefit under the Immigration and Naturalization Act by
fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact and for
overstaying his visa.
Having reviewed the decision of the Board and the
administrative record, we conclude that the Attorney General
sustained his burden of proof on both charges. We reject Uzoka’s
claim that he was denied due process by a former counsel’s
ineffective assistance, finding, as the Board did, that Uzoka did
not substantially comply with the notice requirement of Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). Further, we agree with
the Board that Uzoka would be unable to establish the prejudice
necessary to sustain his due process claim, see Rusu v. INS, 296
F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that an alien, to prevail on
an allegation of denial of due process, must establish prejudice
from that violation), if we addressed the claim on its merits.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -