Chukwujindu Mbakpuo v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-1797 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1797 CHUKWUJINDU VICTOR MBAKPUO, Petitioner Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 4, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Liam Ge, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, Francis W. Fraser, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions Immigration immigration for Appeals review ( Board ) judge s orders an order dismissing denying of his Board of appeal his the from the application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2006), the application reconsider. for voluntary departure and his motion to We dismiss the petition for review. In an appeal of an administrative decision to grant or deny cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229b(b), this court has jurisdiction questions of law. only over constitutional claims and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D) (2006); see Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that, under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D), court has no jurisdiction over any aspects of denial of relief under § 1229b except constitutional claims or questions of law); Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) ( It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the B[oard] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal or relief. ). the other Mbakpuo s enumerated application was forms of denied as discretionary a matter of discretion and because he failed to show his removal would be an exceptional children. and extreme hardship to his United States born We conclude that Mbakpuo has failed to identify any 2 substantive error of law or constitutional claim regarding the discretionary denial of relief. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the order. With regard to voluntary departure, this court does not have jurisdiction voluntary departure, constitutional error to review except or an the denial for error of claims of law. an order for involving a See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f)(2006); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2004). Mbakpuo has failed to identify any such error. Therefore, we dismiss the petition for review. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
