UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1888
MORAKINYO AYODELE OBE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-348-895)
Submitted: March 22, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hakeem Ishola, ISHOLA LAW FIRM, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol
Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Morakinyo Ayodele Obe, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying Obe
a continuance and proceeding with a hearing to determine whether
Obe, proceeding pro se, was eligible for voluntary departure. The
decision to grant or deny a continuance “is within the sound
discretion of the immigration judge and is reviewed for abuse of
discretion only.” Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.
1998). When reviewing the Board’s decision upholding an
immigration judge’s continuance ruling, we will “uphold the
[Board]’s decision unless it was made without a rational
explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or
it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination
against a particular race or group.” Id. (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record and finding
no such improprieties, we uphold the Board’s decision.
Obe also asserts that he was denied due process of law in
the proceedings below. In order to receive relief on a due process
claim, Obe must establish that a violation occurred and show
prejudice. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2002).
Prejudice means that Obe’s rights were violated in a way that was
likely to affect the results of his proceeding. Jean v. Gonzales,
- 2 -
435 F.3d 475, 484 (4th Cir. 2006). Because Obe fails to make such
a showing, this claim entitles him to no relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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
- 3 -