The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-2137•Michael Ademola Adepoju v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General
08-2137Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 30, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2137
MICHAEL ADEMOLA ADEPOJU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 17, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Aimee J.
Frederickson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ademola Adepoju, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for adjustment of
status and voluntary departure. We have reviewed the record and
find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Adepoju
is ineligible for adjustment of status and voluntary departure.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board. See In re: Adepoju (B.I.A. Sept. 10,
2008).* 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
* We specifically uphold the finding that the order imposing
probation without any adjudication of guilt constituted a
conviction for immigration purposes. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(48)(A) (2006); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231 (4th
Cir. 1993).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.