Isang v. Gonzales , 200 F. App'x 300 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60452
Summary Calendar
INCREASE EBONG ISANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29 575 467
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Increase Ebong Isang, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
entered the United States in 1984 on a non-immigrant student
visa. Isang became a legal permanent resident of the United
States in May 1991. Isang was deported pursuant to an order
issued by an immigration judge (IJ) in 1995. The deportation
order was based on Isang’s 1993 convictions for possession of
stolen mail and for credit card abuse.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-60452
-2-
The deportation order was reinstated in 2001 after Isang
illegally re-entered the United States. In 2003, the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the denial of Isang’s motion
to reopen the proceedings that led to the 1995 deportation order.
On April 8, 2005, Isang filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
seeking judicial review of his deportation orders. The petition
was transferred to this court pursuant to the Real ID Act of
2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 106(c), 119 Stat. 231, 311 (May 11,
2005), to be treated as a timely petition for review. See
Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1055(2006).
Isang contends that he is not subject to deportation because
he is a national of the United States. “[A] person may become a
national only by birth or by completing the naturalization
process.” Omolo v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2006).
Isang was not born in the United States, and he does not claim
that he has completed the naturalization process. Isang has not
shown that he is a national of the United States and therefore
not deportable. See Omolo, 452 F.3d at 409.
Isang contends that his counsel in the immigration
proceedings that resulted in the 1995 deportation order was
ineffective because he failed to move for discretionary relief
under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and because
he did not advise Isang to seek judicial review. Isang argues
that his due process rights were violated because the IJ did not
No. 05-60452
-3-
inform him of his eligibility for a discretionary waiver under
§ 212(c) and because the IJ did not inform him of his right to
appeal. He also contends that his due process rights were
violated because the deportation hearing was not transcribed.
Because Isang could not lawfully possess an intent to be
domiciled in this country while he was here on a student visa, he
did not satisfy the requirement of “lawful unrelinquished
domicile of seven consecutive years” under § 212(c). See Brown
v. INS, 856 F.2d 728, 730-31 (5th Cir. 1988). Isang has not
shown that the alleged failures of his counsel or the IJ resulted
in prejudice, nor has he shown that the lack of a transcript
prejudiced him. Accordingly, he has not shown an entitlement to
relief on his ineffective assistance or due process claims. See
Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 385 n.2 (5th Cir. 2001);
Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997).
Isang also seeks to challenge his 1993 convictions for
possession of stolen mail and for credit card abuse, as well as
his 2002 conviction for illegal re-entry. A final conviction
“provides a valid basis for deportation unless it is overturned
in a judicial post-conviction proceeding.” Zinnanti v. INS,
651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1981). Isang has made no showing
that any of his convictions have been overturned, and he may not
collaterally attack the validity of his convictions in
immigration proceedings. See Brown, 856 F.2d at 731.
Isang’s petition for review is DENIED.