No. 99-60319
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 99-60319
Conference Calendar
__________________
MONDAY OSAWARU OGBEBOR, also known as Emanuel Duro,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A26 416 581
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Monday Osawaru Ogbebor petitions this court for review of an
order of deportation issued by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and
affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The
deportation order was based on Ogbebor’s conviction of fraud or
misuse of entry documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).
Ogbebor argues that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming
the IJ’s denial of his motion for a third continuance to appeal
to the BIA the District Director’s decision on remand denying his
putative wife’s petition for alien relative. Ogbebor was granted
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
No. 99-60319
-2-
two continuances while the petition was pending initially before
the District Director, during the appeal to the BIA, and on
remand to the District Director to allow Ogbebor’s putative wife
to rebut evidence that Ogbebor had a prior undissolved marriage.
On remand, the District Director denied the petition for alien
relative again. Because he has not shown that his putative
wife’s petition for alien relative was prima facie approvable or
that he presented good cause to the IJ for a third continuance,
Ogbebor has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in
affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion for a third continuance
of his deportation proceedings. See Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549,
555 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, 68 U.S.L.W. 3252
(U.S. Sept. 30, 1999)(No. 99-56). Ogbebor has also not shown
that he was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance; he has not
shown that the BIA is likely to reverse the District Director’s
denial of his putative wife’s petition for alien relative, and he
has conceded his deportability and that he is not entitled to any
relief from deportation. See In re Sibrun, 18 I & N Dec. 354,
356-57 (BIA 1983). Because Ogbebor has not shown that the BIA
abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion
for a third continuance, Ogbebor’s petition is DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.