Oladipupo v. INS

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 18, 1999
Docket98-60268
StatusUnpublished

This text of Oladipupo v. INS (Oladipupo v. INS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Oladipupo v. INS, (5th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 98-60268 Summary Calendar __________________

ABIDEEN OLADIPUPO, also known as Anthony A. Oladipupo,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A71-892-451 - - - - - - - - - - -

August 16, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abideen Oladipupo appeals the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals finding him deportable, denying his

application for asylum and suspension of deportation, and denying

his motion to remand. Oladipupo also argues that he was denied

due process by his lack of representation.

After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we

find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that

Oladipupo is deportable and not eligible for asylum. Chun v.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. No. 98-60268 -2-

INS, 40 F.3d at 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). We further find that the

BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oladipupo’s motion to

remand. Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 599-600 (5th Cir. 1993).

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility

Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, is

applicable to all aliens in proceedings on April 1, 1997, for

whom a final order of deportation was entered more than thirty

days after September 30, 1996. IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(E); Eyoum v.

INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997). Under IIRIRA, this court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review claims for

discretionary relief, such as suspension of deportation. Eyoum,

125 F.3d at 891; Pilch v. INS, 129 F.3d 969, 970 (7th Cir. 1997).

Because the BIA’s final order of deportation was entered on April

30, 1998, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to review

Oladipupo’s appeal regarding suspension of deportation.

The petition for review is DENIED. All outstanding motions

are also DENIED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Oladipupo v. INS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oladipupo-v-ins-ca5-1999.