Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Ogunfuye v. Holder, No. 09-60074, involved a petition for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The court of appeals denied the petition, on the grounds that 1) because petitioner was an aggravated felon, the court had no jurisdiction to reach her argument that the lack of notice constituted "good cause" warranting a continuance; and 2) the immigration judge did not err in determining that it could not adjudicate petitioner's prima facie eligibility for naturalization.
As the court wrote: "Juliana Adenike Ogunfuye petitions for review of a final order of removal
entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). The BIA's order affirmed the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision to deny her motion for a continuance and dismiss Ogunfuye's claims for relief from removal as abandoned because she failed to supply biometric information in compliance with the IJ's order. On appeal, Ogunfuye argues that the IJ did not give her proper notice that she needed to submit biometrics as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d). She asserts that the lack of notice resulted in the dismissal of her applications for relief in violation of her due process rights. She further contends that the IJ erred by not granting her a continuance to submit biometrics. Finally, Ogunfuye argues that the IJ erroneously determined that it could not make a prima facie adjudication of her naturalization eligibility. We affirm."