Udoma Julius Obi v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UDOMA JULIUS OBI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71461
Agency No. A027-139-333
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Udoma Julius Obi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-71461 2
novo constitutional claims, Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1039-40
(9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
Obi’s due process rights were not violated by the agency’s denial of his
request for section 212(c) relief to waive his removability based on his 1997
conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 286 because he was on notice at the time he
pleaded guilty that relief under section 212(c) would be unavailable to him in the
event his conviction was reclassified as an aggravated felony. See United States v.
Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 850 (9th Cir. 2002).
Obi’s equal protection challenge fails because he is not similarly situated to
those permanent resident aliens whose applications for section 212(c) relief were
adjudicated prior to the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See Dillingham v. INS, 267 F.3d 996, 1007
(9th Cir. 2001) (to succeed on an equal protection challenge, the petitioner must
establish that his treatment differed from that of similarly situated persons).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --