Vandi Nyallay v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1405
ROSALINE KORNYA NYALLAY; VANDI NYALLAY,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 3, 2013 Decided: September 10, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony
C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vandi Nyallay (“Nyallay”) and Rosaline Kornya Nyallay
(“Rosaline”), natives and citizens of Sierra Leone, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s order
finding that they were inadmissible at the time of entry or
adjustment of status and that they were present in the United
States in violation of the law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A),
(B) (2006). We deny the petition for review.
We conclude that there is no merit to the Petitioners’
contention that the immigration judge was without authority to
find them inadmissible without first revoking their status that
permitted them to stay in the country. See, e.g., Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 269 (2004).
Insofar as the Petitioners challenge some of the
evidence used by the immigration judge to find that they were
inadmissible, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, including
the transcript of the merits hearing and the supporting
evidence, and conclude that the record evidence does not compel
a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial
evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias–
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3