PETER MADUIKE V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72974 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER CHIDET MADUIKE, Petitioner, No. 11-72974 Agency No. A072-833-707 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Peter Chidet Maduike, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his request for a continuance and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his In his opening brief, Maduike fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency s denial of Maduike s ninth motion for a continuance. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in a petitioner s opening brief are deemed waived). To the extent Maduike challenges the BIA s 2009 order, we lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge because that order is not a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We also lack jurisdiction to consider Maduike s contention regarding the approved visa petition filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen daughter because he failed to raise that contention before the agency in relation to the order under review, and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We do not consider the supplemental material filed by Maduike because it is not part of the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-72974
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.
