United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-60188 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UHUNOMAN IGHODARO, also known as Nicholas
Ighodaro, also known as John Doe,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29 987 308
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Uhunoman Ighodaro petitions this court for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications
for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. Ighodaro
argues that the IJ erred in denying his application for
cancellation of removal because 181 of the 211 days that he spent
in jail in connection with his two assault convictions
constituted pretrial detention and did not therefore occur “as a
result of conviction” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60188
-2-
He further argues that the IJ erred in considering his criminal
record when reviewing his application for adjustment of status
and that the IJ erred in finding that he had filed numerous
frivolous applications for immigration benefits. These arguments
were not administrativley exhausted and, thus, they are not
considered by this court. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448,
452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Ighodaro’s argument that his due process
rights were violated at the hearing before the IJ is also
unexhausted and not adequately briefed. See Wang, 260 F.3d at
452-53; Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
In addition, we cannot glean from the petition for review
whether Ighodaro is complaining that the IJ failed to rule on his
application for a waiver of excludability under INA § 212(h) or
that the IJ denied this application but failed to give reasons
for its denial. He provides no legal authority for his assertion
that the IJ was required to give reasons for denying an
application for a waiver of excludability. Accordingly, we
consider any challenge regarding his application for a waiver of
excludability abandoned. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25;
Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833; see also Westover v. Reno, 202 F.3d
475, 481 (1st. Cr. 2000).
Ighodaro argues that he has a statutory right to an
administrative appeal in his deportation proceedings and that the
BIA’s ability to affirm without an opinion has resulted in mass
No. 04-60188
-3-
production appellate review that is review in name only. This
argument is without merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b); Albathani
v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 376, 378-79 (1st Cir. 2003). Ighodaro
further argues that his case did not meet the BIA’s requirements
for issuance of an affirmance without opinion pursuant to 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). Because Ighodaro has not shown any error
by the IJ, he has failed to show that there was error with
respect to the BIA’s summary affirmance. To the extent Ighodaro
argues that the summary affirmance violated his due process
rights, the argument is without merit. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at
832-33.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.