Case Name: Maudo L. FOFANA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Neil CLARK, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 08-35361
Parties: Maudo L. FOFANA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Neil CLARK, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Maudo L. FOFANA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Neil CLARK, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-35361.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Maudo L. Fofana, Lynnwood, WA, pro se.
Michael Lang, Assistant U.S., Office of' the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former federal prisoner Maudo L. Fofa-na appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
The issue certified by the district court for appeal — whether an asylum application is an immigration document which falls under the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) — was procedurally defaulted when Fofana did not raise the issue on direct appeal. Fofana has not demonstrated that he is entitled to excuse his procedural default of this issue. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998). In particular, he failed to demonstrate either "actual, factual innocence" or cause and prejudice as a result of any deficient performance by appellate counsel. See United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 964-65 (9th Cir.2003).
We construe Fofana's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.