Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Chukwudi Joseph Okafor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 25 F.3d 1057, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Chukwudi Joseph Okafor's request for suspension of deportation, finding that he had not demonstrated he would suffer extreme hardship if deported to Nigeria. Okafor appealed, arguing that the BIA failed to properly consider the relevant factors and evidence. The Court of Appeals denied Okafor's petition for review, finding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying suspension of deportation because the immigration judge's opinion, which the BIA relied on, fully considered all relevant factors and evidence presented. The Court also noted that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Okafor's request to reinstate voluntary departure.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Chukwudi Joseph Okafor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 25 F.3d 1057, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    50 views2 pages
    The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Chukwudi Joseph Okafor's request for suspension of deportation, finding that he had not demonstrated he would suffer extreme hardship if deported to Nigeria. Okafor appealed, arguing that the BIA failed to properly consider the relevant factors and evidence. The Court of Appeals denied Okafor's petition for review, finding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying suspension of deportation because the immigration judge's opinion, which the BIA relied on, fully considered all relevant factors and evidence presented. The Court also noted that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Okafor's request to reinstate voluntary departure.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-06-14 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 25 F.3d 1057 Docket: 93-9564

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Chukwudi Joseph Okafor's request for suspension of deportation, finding that he had not demonstrated he would suffer extreme hardship if deported to Nigeria. Okafor appealed, arguing that the BIA failed to properly consider the relevant factors and evidence. The Court of Appeals denied Okafor's petition for review, finding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying suspension of deportation because the immigration judge's opinion, which the BIA relied on, fully considered all relevant factors and evidence presented. The Court also noted that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Okafor's request to reinstate voluntary departure.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    50 views2 pages

    Chukwudi Joseph Okafor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 25 F.3d 1057, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Chukwudi Joseph Okafor's request for suspension of deportation, finding that he had not demonstrated he would suffer extreme hardship if deported to Nigeria. Okafor appealed, arguing that the BIA failed to properly consider the relevant factors and evidence. The Court of Appeals denied Okafor's petition for review, finding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying suspension of deportation because the immigration judge's opinion, which the BIA relied on, fully considered all relevant factors and evidence presented. The Court also noted that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Okafor's request to reinstate voluntary departure.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    25 F.

    3d 1057
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Chukwudi Joseph OKAFOR, Petitioner,


    v.
    IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
    Respondent.
    No. 93-9564.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    June 14, 1994.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1
    1

    Before ANDERSON and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and BELOT,** District


    Judge.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this petition for review. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The
    case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Petitioner Chukwudi Joseph Okafor seeks review of a decision of the Board of


    Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his request for suspension of deportation
    pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(1). The only issue before this court is whether the
    BIA erred in its ruling that petitioner had not demonstrated he would suffer
    extreme hardship were he deported. That ruling we review only for an abuse of
    discretion. Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1308 (10th Cir.1993).

    On appeal, petitioner contends that the BIA's ruling was erroneous because the
    Board 1) failed to consider the relevant factors, 2) made conclusory findings, 3)
    failed to consider petitioner's specific circumstances, and 4) disregarded
    evidence of economic hardship that would result if petitioner were returned to

    Nigeria. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, together with the
    parties' briefs and the authority cited therein, and conclude that the BIA did not
    abuse its discretion in denying suspension of deportation. The immigration
    judge's opinion, on which the BIA relied, fully and fairly summarizes the
    evidence presented, and demonstrates consideration of all the relevant factors.
    The BIA was entitled to rely on the immigration judge's reasoning. See Panrit
    v. INS, 19 F.3d 544, 546 (10th Cir.1994).
    5

    Petitioner also requests that we reinstate his voluntary departure. This court
    lacks jurisdiction to consider such a request. See Castaneda v. INS, No. 939549, 1994 WL 182840, at * 4 (10th Cir. May 13, 1994).

    The petition for review is hereby DENIED.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    **

    Honorable Monti L. Belot, District Judge, United States District Court for the
    District of Kansas, sitting by designation

    You might also like