Jonathan Eneanya v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. On Appeal From the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-3248
________________
JONATHAN ENEANYA
Appellant
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 01-cv-01724)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
_______________________________________
Submitted February 26, 2004
Before: RENDELL, BARRY, and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 2, 2004)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Jonathan Eneanya appeals from an order of the District Court denying
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging an order of removal and deportation.
The District Court concluded that Eneanya had not satisfied his burden of proving that the

-- 1 of 3 --

1As this statement suggests there were serious questions about the bona fides of the
marriage. We also note the self-evident dubiousness of the due process claim.
2
former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) had violated his due process
rights by coercing his former wife to withdraw her visa petition filed on behalf of her
then-husband Eneanya. The factual background of this case is detailed, but it is set forth
in the District Court’s decision, hence we need not set it forth here. On appeal,
Eneanya’s argument is new. As is set forth in his brief:
The district court found, as a matter of fact, that “on January 10,
1987, Andrew Eneanya was born to Jonathan and Katherine Eneanya.”
(App. 56, D.C. Opinion, par. 38). The birth of a child is the strongest
possible evidence of the existence of a bona fide marital relationship.
Given that the marriage produced a child, it is submitted that the INS acted
irrationally and in contravention of due process when it found that the bona
fides of the marriage were not proven (App. 56, par. 39). For this reason,
the order of the district court should be reversed, and the INS should be
directed to readmit the petitioner to the United States.1
What is dispositive here is the precept of waiver. Eneanya has waived any
challenge to the District Court’s decision (i.e., that he failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that an immigration officer coerced his wife into withdrawing her visa
petition on his behalf in violation of his due process rights) because he has not challenged
that decision and instead has raised an entirely separate issue on appeal to this Court,
namely, whether the birth of his first child established the bona fides of his marriage.
Because we can only review the decision of the District Court, and because Eneanya
raised no challenge to the District Court’s decision, he has waived it for purposes of this
appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The order of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --