United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60175
Summary Calendar
FRANKLIN IGHEKPE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 212 485
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Franklin Ighekpe, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions
for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
findings that Ighekpe is removable, that he is ineligible for an
adjustment of status because he is inadmissible, and that there
is no waiver of inadmissibility available to Ighekpe.
The IJ found Ighekpe removable because, inter alia, Ighekpe
overstayed his visitor’s visa. Ighekpe argues in this court only
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60175
-2-
that the fact that he overstayed his visa should not affect his
eligibility for an adjustment of status. Ighekpe has abandoned
the issue of removability by failing to challenge the IJ’s
determination that Ighekpe overstayed his visa. See Calderon-
Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
Ighekpe argues that the IJ erred in finding that he is
inadmissible to the United States as a lawful permanent resident
because he made a false claim of United States citizenship. The
IJ’s factual finding on this issue, which finding was based on a
credibility determination, is supported by substantial evidence
and will be upheld. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194,
197 (5th Cir. 1996); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Thus, the IJ properly determined that Ighekpe is inadmissible to
the United States and, therefore, ineligible for an adjustment of
status. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(a), 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). Moreover,
the IJ did not abuse its discretion in finding that there is no
waiver of inadmissibility applicable to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i).
Finally, Ighekpe asserts that the IJ erroneously denied his
bond request. We lack jurisdiction to consider the IJ’s
discretionary denial of bond. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
Ighekpe’s petition for review is DENIED.