(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no
precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-
settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens
on the legal profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 92-4384
Summary Calendar
_______________
JOHN CHIKE,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
_________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A70 439 992)
_________________________
(November 18, 1992)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:*
John Chike, an alien, seeks review of an order of
deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA").
Finding the petition wholly without merit, we deny the petition
and affirm the decision of the BIA.
I.
Respondent, the Immigration and Naturalization Service

-- 1 of 5 --

2
("INS"), charged Chike with deportability pursuant to section
241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as
amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11), as an alien convicted of a
controlled substance violation. An immigration judge ("IJ")
found Chike deportable under that section.
Chike appealed to the BIA, which upheld the decision of the
IJ. We reversed and remanded because Chike had not been given
notice of the BIA's briefing schedule and hence was deprived of
due process of law. Chike v. INS, 948 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1991).
On remand, the BIA once again has upheld the IJ.
II.
In September 1990, Chike was convicted, pursuant to a plea
of "no contest," or nolo contendere, of possession of cocaine
"weighing less than 28 grams by aggregate weight." He was fined
and given four years' probation.
At his deportation hearing, the IJ gave Chike a list of
local immigration attorneys and granted several continuances to
allow him to obtain a lawyer; he did not do so. At his show
cause hearing, Chike admitted the allegations in the show cause
order, including the fact of his conviction.
III.
The BIA found that in light of his conviction, Chike's
deportability had been established by clear, unequivocal, and
convincing evidence. See § 1251(a)(11). This finding is

-- 2 of 5 --

3
conclusive on this court if supported by "reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole." 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4). See Paointhara v. INS, 708
F.2d 472, 474 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
IV.
Chike's main argument on appeal is that a conviction based
upon a plea of nolo contendere cannot constitute the basis for
deportation. We have soundly rejected that assertion, however.
See Yazdchi v. INS, 878 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
493 U.S. 978 (1989); Qureshi v. INS, 519 F.2d 1174, 1175-76 (5th
Cir. 1975). Thus, the BIA properly noted that "it was not the
plea but the conviction which lawfully establishes petitioner's
deportability."
V.
Chike claims that he was denied the right to a fair hearing.
Mainly, he argues that the IJ unfairly led him to answer
questions that were used against him in finding deportability and
by barring him from seeking relief until he first had addressed
the issue of deportability. He also asserts denial of the right
to counsel.
Chike is precluded from raising these procedural issues,
however, as he did not mention them during the administrative
proceedings. See LeTourneur v. INS, 538 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th
Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1044 (1977). These, like all

-- 3 of 5 --

4
contentions of error, must be raised before the BIA in order to
preserve them for judicial review. Otherwise, the petitioner has
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and we may decline
to consider the issue. See Vargas v. INS, 826 F.2d 1394, 1399
(5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (on petition for rehearing);
Carnejo-Molina v. INS, 649 F.2d 1145, 1150-51 (5th Cir. Unit A
July 1981). As Chike raised none of his asserted due process
issues before the BIA, in his brief or otherwise, he has not
preserved them for appeal.
Even if, arguendo, we were to consider these issues, Chike
would have to show substantial prejudice. See Ka Fung Chan v.
INS, 634 F.2d 248, 258 (5th Cir. Jan. 1981); Farrokhi v. INS, 900
F.2d 697, 702 (4th Cir. 1990). In this regard, Chike's claim
that it was improper for the IJ to bar him from seeking relief
until the issue of deportability had been addressed is without
merit, as deportability was the primary )) indeed, the only ))
issue to be determined. The record also does not reflect that
the IJ asked Chike any improper questions but only sought to
determine whether he was deportable. The fact that his answers
may not have helped him is no ground for complaint.
Chike also has no valid claim that he was improperly
deprived of the right to counsel. There is no right to appointed
counsel in deportation proceedings. Paul v. INS, 521 F.2d 194,
197-98 (5th Cir. 1975). As here, the alien is provided with the
opportunity to retain a lawyer, and, also as here, if he fails to
do so the hearing may proceed. See Villanueva-Jurado v. INS, 482

-- 4 of 5 --

5
F.2d 886, 888 (5th Cir. 1973); Ramirez v. INS, 550 F.2d 560, 565
(9th Cir. 1977). The record reflects that Chike was given a list
of immigration attorneys and had ample opportunity to retain one.
Moreover, given the fact of his conviction, there is no reason to
think that the presence of counsel would have made a difference
in the deportation proceedings.
Finally, Chike appears to raise questions regarding the
validity of his conviction. We long have held, however, that
"[i]mmigration authorities must look solely to the judicial
record of final conviction and may not make their own independent
assessment of the validity of [the petitioner's] guilty plea."
Zinnanti v. INS, 651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981)
(per curiam).
In summary, Chike's attack on the order of deportation is to
no avail. The petition for review is DISMISSED, and the decision
of the BIA is AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --