Remi Njoku v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1688 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1688 REMI CHIDE NJOKU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; EMILIO GONZALEZ, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; GREGORY L. COLLETT, District Director, Baltimore District Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; CALVIN MCCORMICK, Field Office Director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement; GEORGE WILLIAM MAUGANS, III, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Remi Chide Njoku, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tyrone Sojourner, Jem Colleen Sponzo, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Remi Chide Njoku, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) proceedings. denying his motion to reopen removal We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board s order and find no abuse of discretion in the Board s decision declining to grant ยง 1003.2(a), (c) (2008). reopening. 8 See C.F.R. We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. Njoku (B.I.A. May 20, 2008). See In re: With regard to Njoku s challenge to the Board s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority, we find that we are without jurisdiction to review that aspect of the Board s decision, and thus dismiss the petition for review with respect to that claim. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART 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.
