UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MAURICE WILSON IGUADE, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 03-1070

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A92-005-771)

Submitted: July 31, 2003

Decided: October 28, 2003

Before LUTTIG, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Elliott, Fabienne Chatain, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel, Audrey

B. Hemesath, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Maurice Wilson Iguade, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

finding him ineligible for relief from removal. Iguade entered the

United States at an unknown place and time and on September 13,

1990, was granted lawful permanent resident status. On April 20,

1995, Iguade was convicted of mail fraud and aiding and abetting

mail fraud in the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia. Following the issuance of a Notice to Appear charging him

with removability from the United States, Iguade appeared before an

Immigration Judge (IJ) and admitted the factual allegations against

him, including the fact that he was an alien and had been convicted

of an aggravated felony. 

Iguade, however, contests his removability, arguing that he was

never "admitted" to the United States and was therefore not removable by virtue of his aggravated felony conviction because such conviction must occur "at any time after admission" to the United States.

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2000). Iguade insists that he was never

admitted because there is no evidence in the record that he lawfully

entered this country after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (2000). Because he claims

he is not removable due to his conviction, Iguade contends that immigration provisions precluding judicial review of final orders of

removal of certain criminal aliens do not apply to him and that he thus

may press his claim in this court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)

(2000); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Thus, Iguade asserts that the

nature of his claim permits judicial review. 

We indeed retain jurisdiction to determine whether the jurisdictional facts precluding review are present in a particular case. See

Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539, 541-42 (4th Cir. 1999). However, we

conclude that Iguade’s claim disputing his removability is without

merit. See Ocampo-Duran v. Ashcroft, 254 F.3d 1133, 1134-35 (9th

Cir. 2001); In re Rosas, 22 I. & N. Dec. 616 (BIA 1999). 

As the facts precluding review are indeed present here, we grant

the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the petition for review for

2 IGUADE v. ASHCROFT
lack of jurisdiction. 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 DISMISSED

IGUADE v. ASHCROFT 3