George Ogola Odero v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 17-2081 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2081 GEORGE WILLIAM OGOLA ODERO, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: May 3, 2018 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rishi P. Oza, ROBERT BROWN LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Steven K. Uejio, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: George William Ogola Odero, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding him 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 Odero is removable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) (2012). Based on our thorough review of the record and Odero’s assignments of error, we agree with the agency that the Government met its burden of proof in this case. We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Odero (B.I.A. Aug. 28, 2017). 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 2

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.