(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 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should not be published.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. 93-5059
Summary Calendar
_____________________
LAWRENCE IWUALA,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION and NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service
(72 425-800)
_________________________________________________________________
(April 14, 1994)
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence Iwuala ("Iwuala"), seeking to avoid deportation to
his native land, appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals ("BIA"), which found him deportable under two provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ("the Act"). 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101-1157 (1970 & Supp. 1994). Because we find that the

-- 1 of 5 --

1Iwuala has apparently entered this country several other
times; however, none of these entries are relevant to the
adjudication of this case.
2Section 1251(a)(1)(C)(i) provides:
Any alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant and who has
failed to maintain the nonimmigrant status in which the
alien was admitted or to which it was changed under
section 1258 of this title, or to comply with the
conditions of any such status, is deportable.
8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(C)(i) (Supp. 1994). Section 1251(a)(2)(C)
provides:
Any alien who at any time after entry is convicted under
any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale,
exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying in
violation of any law, any weapon, part, or accessory
which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in
section 921(a) of Title 18) is deportable.
-2-
decision of the BIA is supported by substantial evidence, we
affirm.
I
Iwuala, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the United
States on August 26, 1984, as a non-immigrant student authorized to
attend Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas, for the
duration of his status.1 Several months after he entered the
country, on November 8, he was convicted in Texas state court for
unlawfully carrying a loaded shotgun. Soon thereafter, in December
1984, Iwuala stopped attending Texas Southern University, and he
failed to enroll as a student at any other educational institution.
On April 23, 1993, the INS charged Iwuala as deportable under
8 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a)(1)(C)(i) & (a)(2)(C) (Supp. 1994),2 for failure

-- 2 of 5 --

8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(C) (Supp. 1994).
-3-
to maintain his student status and for his conviction of a firearm
offense. During his deportation hearing on May 6, 1993, Iwuala
conceded deportability by admitting that he failed to maintain his
student status and that he had been convicted of a firearm offense.
When given an opportunity to explain the circumstances of his case,
Iwuala set forth a rambling and unintelligible discourse concerning
a "conspiracy attack" against him. Iwuala was then allowed
additional time to gather information concerning the possibility of
obtaining relief from deportation through relatives. On May 13,
Iwuala appeared at a second hearing; however, he failed to present
additional information that would allow the IJ to suspend
deportation. With respect to the conspiracy allegations, the IJ
stated that she rejected those allegations as "irrelevant to the
disposition of [the] case." Accordingly, the IJ found that the
government had established Iwuala's deportability by clear,
convincing and unequivocal evidence.
Iwuala appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA. The BIA
dismissed the appeal, noting that Iwuala admitted that he failed to
maintain his student status and that he had been convicted of a
firearm offense. The BIA also noted Iwuala's conspiracy
allegations, and like the IJ, rejected them as irrelevant to the
adjudication of deportability. Iwuala now appeals to this court
the BIA's determination of his appeal.

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
II
On appeal, Iwuala contends that the decision to deport him
should be reversed based on his vague allegations of the existence
of some conspiracy against him. Although Iwuala's description of
the details of this conspiracy is less than articulate, it appears
that he asserts that his wife and others, including unidentified
members of the federal government, concocted a scheme to have
Iwuala charged with crimes and deported as a result of envy of his
scholarship abilities. Significantly, Iwuala never denies that he
possessed a firearm or ceased being a student but rather claims
that the conspiracy excused that conduct.
We are authorized to review only the order of the BIA, not the
decision of the immigration judge. Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929
F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1991). In reviewing the BIA's actions, we
examine the factual findings to determine if they are supported by
substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, ___ U.S. ___, 112
S.Ct. 812, 815, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186,
189 (5th Cir. 1991). The substantial evidence standard requires
only that the BIA's conclusion be based upon the evidence
presented, and that the findings be substantially reasonable.
Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d at 189. Thus, the BIA's decision can be
reversed only if Iwuala can demonstrate that the evidence he
presented was "so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find" for him. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 112 S.Ct. at 817.

-- 4 of 5 --

3Iwuala also makes vague references to civil rights litigation
that is or was pending in federal court and may have something to
do with this conviction. His conviction and sentence, however, are
final in that there is no direct appeal pending and the time for
appeal has expired. See Okabe v. I.N.S., 671 F.2d 863, 865 (5th
Cir. 1982).
-5-
The record, however, clearly contains "substantial evidence"
that Iwuala engaged in conduct which, under 8 U.S.C. §§
1251(a)(1)(C)(i) & (a)(2)(C) (Supp. 1994), renders him deportable.
Iwuala admitted that he ceased being a student soon after he came
to the United States in August 1984; inasmuch as this was a
condition to his nonimmigrant status, this admission rendered him
deportable under section 1251(a)(1)(C)(i). See Shoja v. INS, 679
F.2d 447, 450 (5th Cir. 1982). Further, the INS presented clear
proof that Iwuala was convicted of possessing a firearm, further
rendering him deportable under section 1251(a)(2)(C). At the
hearing before the IJ, Iwuala attempted to diminish the effect of
this conviction by pointing out that he made a plea of nolo
contendere.3 Iwuala's plea, however, does not negate the fact of
conviction. See Yazdchi v. INS, 878 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir. 1989).
Therefore, the order of the BIA is supported by substantial
evidence and should be upheld.
III
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is
A F F I R M E D.

-- 5 of 5 --