Ehiabhi Egboh v. US, No. 16-1603 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1603 EHIABHI EGBOH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Court. Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017 Before TRAXLER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Vanessa M. Otero, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ehiabhi Egboh, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s order concurring with an asylum officer’s determination that Egboh failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Nigeria. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1) (2012). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated felony. We retain jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526–27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”). Upon review, we find that the claims raised by Egboh are not sufficiently colorable to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See Lumataw v. Holder, 582 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2009) (“To form the basis of judicial review under § 1252(a)(2)(D), the alleged underlying constitutional or legal question must be colorable; that is, the argument advanced must, at the very least, have some potential validity.” Accordingly, jurisdiction. we (internal dismiss the quotation petition for marks review omitted)). for lack of We dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
