Case Name: Michael Ademola ADEPOJU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-30
Citations: 335 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 08-2137
Parties: Michael Ademola ADEPOJU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 335
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
Michael Ademola ADEPOJU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-2137.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 17, 2009.
Decided: June 30, 2009.
Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Aimee J. Frederickson, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ademóla Adepoju, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his re quests for adjustment of status and voluntary departure. We have reviewed the record and find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Adepoju is ineligible for adjustment of status and voluntary departure. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Adepoju, 2008 WL 4335822 (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2008). 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.
We specifically uphold the finding that the order imposing probation without any adjudication of guilt constituted a conviction for immigration purposes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (2006); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231 (4th Cir.1993).