Adeniyi v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    MICHAEL A. ADENIYI,                      
    Petitioner,
    v.
    U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
    SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney
    General,
            No. 02-1865
    Respondents.
    AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW
    FOUNDATION ("AILF"),
    Amicus Supporting Petitioner.
    
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals.
    (A-91-206-109)
    Submitted: March 21, 2003
    Decided: April 25, 2003
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Jim Tom Haynes, CAMERON & HORNBOSTEL, L.L.P., Washing-
    ton, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney
    General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel,
    Anthony P. Nicastro, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
    2                           ADENIYI v. INS
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
    Respondents. Mary A. Kenney, Nadine K. Wettstein, Beth Werlin,
    AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION, Washington,
    D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael A. Adeniyi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions this
    Court for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision finding Adeniyi deport-
    able, denying the relief of suspension of deportation, and granting
    voluntary departure.
    Adeniyi’s case, which commenced with the issuance of an Order
    to Show Cause in March 1997, is governed by the transitional rules
    of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
    of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 
    110 Stat. 3009
    . We find that
    Adeniyi is an alien who is deportable due to his conviction of posses-
    sion of more than sixteen ounces of marijuana and that we thus do not
    have jurisdiction to consider his petition for review. See Hall v. INS,
    
    167 F.3d 852
    , 854-56 (4th Cir. 1999); IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G); Immi-
    gration and Nationality Act § 241(a)(2)(B).
    Nevertheless, Adeniyi advances a due process challenge to the
    Board’s use of its summary affirmance procedure under 
    8 C.F.R. § 3.1
    (a)(7) (2002), contending that the Board failed to follow its own
    regulation with regard to the issuance of the summary affirmance.
    Assuming, without deciding, that we retain jurisdiction to review sub-
    stantial constitutional questions in this context, see Ramtulla v. Ash-
    croft, 
    301 F.3d 202
    , 203-04 (4th Cir. 2002), we find that Adeniyi’s
    challenge does not qualify as such. See Albathani v. INS, 
    318 F.3d 365
    , 375-79 (1st Cir. 2003).
    ADENIYI v. INS                           3
    Accordingly, we dismiss Adeniyi’s petition for review for lack of
    jurisdiction. 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.
    DISMISSED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1865

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, Gregory

Filed Date: 4/25/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024