Chidi Onwuneme v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Docket: 94-9518
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; January 19, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue and are attached to the citing document or provided to the Court and all parties if cited orally. In the case of Chidi Onwuneme v. Immigration Naturalization Service, the Tenth Circuit reviewed a deportation order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which determined Onwuneme was deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii) due to two convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude. Onwuneme contended that the convictions arose from a single scheme of misconduct and challenged the immigration judge’s requirement to answer potentially incriminating questions. The court denied his petition for review, affirming the Board's conclusion that the convictions were based on separate transactions: two bad checks written at different Sam's Wholesale Clubs in Texas, despite being committed on the same day and sharing the same victim. The court referenced the Nguyen v. INS decision, which clarifies that a single scheme of misconduct requires acts to be part of a single criminal episode, rather than merely linked by motive or identity of victim. The Board's interpretation was deemed reasonable and warranted deference, leading to the conclusion that Onwuneme's actions did not constitute a single criminal episode. The petitioner’s Fifth Amendment challenge regarding being compelled to testify about thefts is rejected. The immigration judge determined that the petitioner’s testimony did not expose him to prosecution since he had already been convicted for those thefts. Speculative concerns about potential prosecution for related offenses do not meet the threshold for invoking Fifth Amendment protections, as established in United States v. Clark, which requires a real and substantial risk of incrimination. The court does not address the petitioner’s claim of being unfairly compelled to prove his case, noting that this argument was not presented to the Board, following the precedent in Florez-de Solis v. INS regarding unexhausted issues. Consequently, the petition for review is denied. The order is not binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines, and citation is generally disfavored but permitted under certain conditions outlined in the court's General Order from November 29, 1993.