NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-3955 ___________ CHARLES UCHE AKABUOGU, a/k/a Norman Love, a/k/a Charles U. Akabuogu, a/k/a Valentino Black, a/k/a Norman S. Love, a/k/a Charles Akabuogu, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A029-732-871) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 13, 2021 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed February 10, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Charles Akabuogu, a citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. I. Akabuogu was admitted into the United States on a tourist visa in 1986. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with being removable for having overstayed his visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Akabuogu, through counsel, conceded that charge and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The application claimed that if Akabuogu returned to Nigeria, he would be harmed because he is Christian and is a member of the Ibo tribe. Akabuogu later amended his application, adding a claim that he fears that he would be harmed in Nigeria because he is bisexual. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”), after holding a merits hearing,1 denied Akabuogu’s amended application, denied his request for voluntary departure, and ordered his removal to Nigeria. The IJ based the denial of Akabuogu’s amended application on several grounds; among other things, the IJ concluded that Akabuogu’s asylum claim was time- barred, and that he had failed to show that he would likely be persecuted or tortured if he returned to Nigeria. 1 Akabuogu proceeded pro se at the hearing, as another IJ had previously granted Akabuogu’s attorney’s motion to withdraw from the case. 2 Akabuogu, proceeding pro se, appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. As part of that appeal, Akabuogu submitted new evidence, consisting of letters and affidavits attesting to his bisexuality, his membership in a Christian church, and his good character. In December 2019, the BIA dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IJ’s analysis and indicating that remand was not warranted because Akabuogu had not demonstrated that his new evidence “was previously unavailable or would likely change the result of the case.” (BIA Decision 3.) This timely petition for review followed. II. As a general matter, we have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). However, the scope of our review in this case is limited in two respects. First, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Akabuogu’s asylum claim as time-barred. See Issiaka v. Att’y Gen., 569 F.3d 135, 137 (3d Cir. 2009). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals