Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06253/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06253-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ADEMOLA MICHAEL OGUNLEYE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FI LED 

United Scaces Courc of Appeals 

'fcnih Cir~~i: 

FEB 21 1990 

I\OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) No. 89-6253 

) 

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION ) 

SERVICE; RICHARD THORNBURG, ) 

Attorney General; ALLEN ) 

NELSON, Commissioner, OMAR G. ) 

SEWELL, District Director, INS) 

Harligen, Texas; ANDREW J. ) 

IRWIN, IV, JR., INS ) 

Legalization Office;, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-88-1652-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACBA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6253 Document: 01019964424 Date Filed: 02/21/1990 Page: 1 
Ademola Michael Ogunleye appeals from the district court's 

order dismissing his petition for review of certain Immigration 

and Naturalization Service (INS) actions. We affirm. 

The district court did not err in holding that it lacked 

jurisdiction to review Ogunleye's attack on his previous 

deportation order. The Courts of Appeals have exclusive 

jurisdiction over attacks on final deportation orders. See Salehi 

Y..=.. District Director, INS, 796 F.2d 1286, 1289 (10th Cir. 1986); 8 

U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Nor does Ogunleye fit within the exception of 

8 u.s.c. section 1105a(a)(9); he is not in custody pursuant to a 

final order of deportation. The district court properly dismissed 

Ogunleye's attack on the prior deportation order. 

Even if we were to reach the question of whether the 

government's deportation of Ogunleye before the expiration of the 

appeal period in violation of 8 C.F.R. part 3.6 (1988) violated 

due process, we would find no violation. Assuming that such 

conduct by the government is wrongful and would toll the 

applicable appeal time while Ogunleye was out of the country, 

Ogunleye was entitled to at most one day within which to appeal to 

the Board of Immigration Appeals when he returned. Well over a 

year passed before Ogunleye filed a request for relief raising 

these grounds. We agree with the government that Ogunleye has 

waived his appeal rights. 

Ogunleye's request for relief from _ the filing fee requirement 

under 8 u.s.c. section 1255(a) was properly denied. The 

implementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. part 103.2(c)(3) provide that 

applications for adjustment of status under the statute are not 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6253 Document: 01019964424 Date Filed: 02/21/1990 Page: 2 
considered complete until the fee is paid. The government is 

under no obligation to vary its regulatorily-imposed application 

process. The granting of an application to adjust status is 

discretionary. See Randall~ Meese, 854 F.2d 472, 476 (D.C. Cir. 

1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 109 S. Ct. 3686 (1989). The 

INS did not abuse its discretion. 

Finally, we hold that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion when it refused to enjoin ongoing administrative 

proceedings concerning Ogunleye's second deportation order. See 

Massignani ~ INS., 438 F.2d 1276, 1277 (7th Cir. 1976). The 

proper time for judicial review of such administrative actions is 

upon completion and exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

The judgment of the district court dismissing the petition is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith • 

3 

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6253 Document: 01019964424 Date Filed: 02/21/1990 Page: 3