UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7435
AKINBOBOLA AKINKOYE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-01-1000-AM)
Submitted: March 17, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alex Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, S. Kathleen Pepper, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Akinbobola Akinkoye appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Akinkoye first contends that the district
court erred in dismissing his due process claim and claims that he
was deprived of the right to file a brief in support of his appeal
before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). In order to
succeed on a procedural due process claim, Akinkoye must make a
showing of prejudice. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir.
2002); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 703 n.7 (4th Cir. 1990). We
may find prejudice only “when the rights of [an] alien have been
transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results of
the proceeding.” Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320-21 (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Akinkoye filed a detailed one and a half page
statement with his Notice of Appeal in which he set forth his
reasons for appeal. The Board addressed each of Akinkoye’s claims
in its order of October 4, 2000. Akinkoye has failed to identify
any other issues that he would have raised had he filed a separate
brief with the Board. We therefore find that he has failed to show
that the absence of an appellate brief affected the outcome of his
case and therefore fails to make the requisite showing of
prejudice. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did
not err in dismissing this claim.
- 2 -
Akinkoye also claims that he is a national of the United
States and thus is not an alien subject to removal proceedings. He
claims that the district court erred in failing to address this
claim in its opinion. Our review of the record reveals that
Akinkoye did not raise this claim in his initial habeas petition
and thus failed to properly present this claim to the district
court. In any case, we note that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Akinkoye’s nationality claim as such
claims must be presented to this court in the first instance. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) (2000).
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We deny
Akinkoye’s motion for stay of removal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -