Ogi v. Lynch

Fourth Circuit

Ogi v. Lynch

622 F. App'x 262

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 2015

DocketNo. 15-1854

StatusPublished

This text of 622 F. App'x 262 (Ogi v. 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

Ogi v. Lynch, 622 F. App'x 262 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Chukuyem Ogi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s finding that Ogi was not credible and that he failed to demonstrate extreme hardship so as to establish eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (2012). Because Ogi raises no constitutional claims or questions of law, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D) (2012); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 479-80 (4th Cir.2006). We accordingly dismiss the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED.

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

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Chukuyem Ogi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s finding that Ogi was not credible and that he failed to demonstrate extreme hardship so as to establish eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (2012). Because Ogi raises no constitutional claims or questions of law, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D) (2012); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 479-80 (4th Cir.2006). We accordingly dismiss the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 F. App'x 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogi-v-lynch-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack