Case ID: f-appx_702/html/0928-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gbolahan Babagbemileke MAJEKODUNMI, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
    No. 16-17694 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (November 7, 2017)
    Gbolahan Babagbemileke Majekodunmi, Pro Se
    Virginia Lum, Kevin James Conway, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Alfie Owens, DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel—ATL, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent
    Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gbolahan Majekodunmi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of an order affirming the denial of his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), and for an adjustment of status, id. § 1255(a). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the findings of the immigration judge that Majekodunmi failed to prove that his removal would cause extreme hardship to himself or to his mother, a United States citizen. We dismiss Majekodunmi’s petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review Majeko-dunmi’s petition. “[N]o court ... ha[s] jurisdiction to review ... any judgment regarding the granting of [discretionary] relief [for a waiver of inadmissibility based on extreme hardship] under section ,.. 1182(i),” id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), unless the petition for review presents “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Majekodunmi argues that the Board failed to “give[ ] sufficient weight to [his] claims of undue hardship,” contests the adverse credibility finding of the immigration judge, argues that his removal will cause undue hardship to his new wife and child, see id. § 1182(i), and argues that the immigration judge erred by denying his application for an adjustment of status, id. § 1255(a), but none of his arguments present a constitutional issue or question of law.

We DISMISS Majekodunmi’s petition.