Stephen Onwuzulike v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-1626 ___________ STEPHEN IZUCHUKWU ONWUZULIKE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A214-967-318) Immigration Judge: Jason L. Pope ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 15, 2021 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., PORTER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 10, 2022) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Stephen Izuchukwu Onwuzulike, who is a citizen of Nigeria proceeding pro se, petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review. Onwuzulike entered the United States in 2017 as a nonimmigrant visitor for six months, but he overstayed. In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged him with removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), for unlawfully remaining in the United States. At a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ) in July 2020, Onwuzulike, represented by counsel at the time, admitted to the factual allegations and conceded that he was removable. The IJ sustained the charge of removability. Onwuzulike explained that his United States citizen wife had filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on his behalf, and he would be seeking adjustment of status. The IJ agreed to continue the case so that Onwuzulike could submit proof of filing and receipt of the I-130 petition by the USCIS. By the time of the next hearing on August 4, the USCIS had denied the I- 130 petition, but Onwuzulike’s counsel did not appear to be aware of that fact, and the IJ granted another continuance so the parties could confirm its status.1 Onwuzulike’s 1 After an Immigration Services Officer interviewed the couple, the USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”) on March 16, 2020, requesting Onwuzulike’s “divorce Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute” from his previous marriage and providing the couple thirty days to respond. A.R. 284. They did not respond within that time, but filed a response on July 4, 2020, with the statement that “all civil service offices are closed down in Nigeria including customary and all the court since March as a result of COVID- 19.” Id. In a July 21, 2020 decision, the USCIS concluded that the response was 2 counsel thereafter withdrew, and when Onwuzulike appeared at the August 25 hearing, he claimed that there was a valid appeal of the I-130 petition denial pending. The IJ again adjourned the hearing for Onwuzulike to apply for asylum-related relief. Reconvening at another hearing on September 15, Onwuzulike explained that he had decided against petitioning for asylum remedies but wanted to pursue the I-130 appeal. Nevertheless, the IJ granted Onwuzulike another continuance, over DHS’s opposition, so that he could …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals