Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0367-01.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

Anthony Chinedu ANUSHIEM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Anthony Chinedu Anushiem, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 12-1175, 12-1630.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 28, 2012.
    Decided: Oct. 31, 2012.
    Anthony Chinedu Anushiem, Petitioner Pro Se. Matthew Albert Connelly, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petitions dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Chinedu Anushiem, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to reconsider and denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and find that because Anushiem has been convicted of an aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction over the majority of his claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006). Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for review in part with respect to these claims. We have considered Anushiem’s constitutional and legal claims, over which we retain jurisdiction, and find them to be without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006). Therefore, with respect to these claims, we deny the petitions for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Anushiem (B.I.A. Jan. 10 & Apr. 16, 2012). We deny Anushiem’s motions for appointment of counsel and for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to stay removal. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.