Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02792/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02792-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Elizabeth Walter Ochiagha
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

In her petition for review, Ochiagha states that she is also appealing from the

denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief, but

she has waived review of those claims by not presenting any argument on them in her

brief. See Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Because

[petitioner] does not argue these issues in his brief, we do not consider them as part

of the petition for review.”); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2792

___________

Elizabeth Walter Ochiagha, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: November 3, 2006

Filed: December 4, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Walker Ochiagha, a citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration

Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of cancellation of removal.1

Appellate Case: 05-2792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2006 Entry ID: 2114688
2004) (petitioner waived claims by not presenting meaningful argument on it in his

appellate brief).

-2-

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Ochiagha failed to

show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United-Statescitizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (cancellation-of-removal eligibility

requirements); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review

any judgment regarding granting of cancellation of removal); De La Vega v.

Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2006) (appeals court is precluded from

reviewing discretionary determination as to whether alien meets

exceptional-and-extremely-unusual hardship threshold). 

We do have jurisdiction to consider Ochiagha’s due process claim, see

Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, No. 2006 WL 2483209, at *3 (8th Cir. Aug. 20, 2006), but

we find that claim unavailing as Ochiagha has pointed to nothing in the record

suggesting that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her case, or that

the IJ or the BIA otherwise deprived her of fundamental fairness, see Xiao Ji Chen v.

Gonzales, 434 F.3d 144, 155 (2d Cir. 2006); Lopez v. Heinauer, 332 F.3d 507, 512-13

(8th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. We previously granted Ochiagha’s motion

for a stay of her removal and voluntary-departure period; the remaining period in

which she may voluntarily depart the United States shall begin to run when our

mandate in this case is issued, see Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889, 899-900 (8th Cir.

2005).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2006 Entry ID: 2114688