Johanna Fapohunda v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2590
JOHANNA FOLAKE FAPOHUNDA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
April Cockerham, PRICE BENOWITZ LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Margot L. Carter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Johanna Folake Fapohunda, a native of the Netherlands and a
citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision finding her removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(3)(D)(i) (2012) (providing that an alien “who falsely
represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of
the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter
. . . or any Federal or State law is deportable”).
The Government bears the burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that Fapohunda is removable. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(3)(A) (2012). Based on our review of the record, we
agree that the Government met its burden of proof. Fapohunda
pleaded guilty and was convicted of falsely and willfully
representing herself to be a citizen of the United States, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 (2012), and admitted in the Statement
of the Offense that she did so in order to deceive the government
of the District of Columbia into believing that she could lawfully
work for them. She further admitted that her false representations
“were not the product of any accident, negligence or mistake.”
(E.R. 315). Despite Fapohunda’s arguments to the contrary, the
agency cannot go behind the criminal judgment and consider an
alien’s collateral attack on her conviction. Veloz-Luvevano v.
Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308, 1314 (10th Cir. 2015); Abiodun v. Gonzales,
2
461 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006); Olivera-Garcia v. INS, 328
F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003); Zinnanti v. INS, 651 F.2d 420,
421 (5th Cir. 1981).
We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board. In re Fapohunda (B.I.A. Dec. 2, 2015). 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