UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1128

KINGSLEY KELECHI OGIDEH,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Liam Ge, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, 

Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, P. Michael Truman, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kingsley Kelechi Ogideh, a native and citizen of 

Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing Ogideh’s appeal from

his order of removal and denying his motion to remand his case 

to the immigration court. For the reasons that follow, we deny 

the petition for review. 

First, we reject Ogideh’s claim that his due process 

rights were violated when he was not provided with an approved, 

edited, and signed transcript of his removal hearing and the 

immigration judge’s oral decision prior to submission of his 

appellate brief to the Board. To succeed on a due process claim 

in an asylum or removal proceeding, an alien must establish two 

closely linked elements: (1) that a defect in the proceeding 

rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that the defect 

prejudiced the outcome of the case. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 

243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-22, 324

(4th Cir. 2002). Because Ogideh did not demonstrate how the 

outcome of his administrative appeal was impacted by this 

failure, the Board properly rejected this claim. 

Ogideh next challenges the Board’s construing his 

motion to remand as a motion to reopen, based on In re Lozada, 

19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), and denying it because Ogideh 

failed to substantially comply with Lozada’s requirements for an 
3

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We have reviewed 

Ogideh’s argument, the relevant record, and the Board’s analysis 

of this issue, and hold the Board did not abuse its discretion 

in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). The 

Board was further correct in concluding that reopening to allow 

an alien to pursue discretionary relief is not permitted when 

that relief had been explained to the alien, and the alien had 

been afforded the opportunity to pursue such relief. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2010); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 

F.3d 400, 408-09 (4th Cir. 2005). The transcript of Ogideh’s 

administrative hearing reflects this is precisely what happened 

here.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review 

substantially for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: 

Ogideh (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2009). 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.

PETITION DENIED