Johanna Fapohunda v. Loretta Lynch

Fourth Circuit

Johanna Fapohunda v. Loretta Lynch

667 F. App'x 813

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

Docket15-2590

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 813 (Johanna Fapohunda v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johanna Fapohunda v. Loretta Lynch, 667 F. App'x 813 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*814 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johanna Folake Fapohunda, a native of the Netherlands and a citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding her removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(8)(D)® (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 deporta-ble”).

The Government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Fapohunda is removable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) (2012). Based on our review of the record, we agree that the Government met its burden of proof. Fapohunda pleaded guilty and was convicted of falsely and willfully representing herself to be a citizen of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 (2012), and admitted in the Statement of the Offense that she did so in order to deceive the government of the District of Columbia into believing that she could lawfully work for them. She further admitted that her false representations “were not the product of any accident, negligence or mistake.” (E.R. 315). Despite Fa-pohunda’s arguments to the contrary, the agency cannot go behind the criminal judgment and consider an alien’s collateral attack on her conviction. Veloz-Luvevano v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308, 1314 (10th Cir. 2015); Abiodun v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006); Olivera-Garcia v. INS, 328 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003); Zinnanti v. INS, 651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1981).

We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Fapohunda (B.I.A. Dec. 2, 2015). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*814 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johanna Folake Fapohunda, a native of the Netherlands and a citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding her removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(8)(D)® (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 deporta-ble”).

The Government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Fapohunda is removable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) (2012). Based on our review of the record, we agree that the Government met its burden of proof. Fapohunda pleaded guilty and was convicted of falsely and willfully representing herself to be a citizen of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 (2012), and admitted in the Statement of the Offense that she did so in order to deceive the government of the District of Columbia into believing that she could lawfully work for them. She further admitted that her false representations “were not the product of any accident, negligence or mistake.” (E.R. 315). Despite Fa-pohunda’s arguments to the contrary, the agency cannot go behind the criminal judgment and consider an alien’s collateral attack on her conviction. Veloz-Luvevano v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308, 1314 (10th Cir. 2015); Abiodun v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006); Olivera-Garcia v. INS, 328 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003); Zinnanti v. INS, 651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1981).

We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Fapohunda (B.I.A. Dec. 2, 2015). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johanna-fapohunda-v-loretta-lynch-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack