Emmanuel Nwankwo v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1126
EMMANUEL OGBONNAYA NWANKWO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 12, 2011 Decided: August 24, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel Ogbonnaya Nwankwo, Petitioner Pro Se. Kiley L. Kane,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Ogbonnaya Nwankwo, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying Nwankwo’s request for a
continuance, pretermitting his request for a § 212(c) waiver of
inadmissibility, * and ordering his removal to Nigeria. For the
reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for review.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is
removable for having been convicted of certain enumerated
crimes, including a controlled substance violation. Because
Nwankwo conceded before the immigration court that he is an
alien who was found removable for having been convicted of a
controlled substance violation, a concession which he does not
challenge on appeal, our review is limited to “constitutional
claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D);
Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have thoroughly reviewed Nwankwo’s informal brief
and the administrative record and conclude we are without
jurisdiction to consider Nwankwo’s claims. Nwankwo failed to
*
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) (repealed 1996).
2
exhaust his administrative remedies by presenting his claims on
appeal to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006);
Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We
also find that he failed to raise a colorable constitutional
claim or question of law that would fall within the exception
set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales,
516 F.3d 35, 40-41 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that a criminal alien
must raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law
in order for a federal appellate court to have jurisdiction
under § 1252(a)(2)(D)).
We therefore dismiss 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 DISMISSED
3