NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-3566 ___________ ADEBISI TAFIKE ADIGUN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A099-029-937) Immigration Judge: Alice Song Hartye ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) August 18, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 18, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Adebisi Tafike Adigun, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. (IJ) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. Adigun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant in 2002. His status was adjusted to an F-1 nonimmigrant student in January 2003.1 In 2011, Adigun was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. He was then charged with removability for having been convicted of a drug trafficking aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). At a hearing before the immigration judge (IJ), he conceded the drug trafficking charge and his removability as an aggravated felon. Adigun filed an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). His CAT claim was predicated on his assertion that he would be subject to torture in Nigeria at the hands of the police or the community because of his sexual orientation. Adigun and his brother testified at an immigration hearing. The IJ noted inconsistencies and omissions in Adigun’s application that caused her “significant hesitation,” but she did not make an adverse credibility determination. She concluded that Adigun was convicted of an aggravated felony and, therefore, he was statutorily 1 Adigun was charged with removability in 2008 based on his failure to maintain compliance with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status under 8 U.S.C. § 1227. The immigration proceedings were administratively terminated in August 2010 when Adigun was taken into custody on criminal charges. 2 ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b). The IJ further found that Adigun’s drug trafficking offense constituted a “particularly serious crime,” precluding his eligibility for withholding of removal under either the INA or the CAT; he was potentially eligible only for deferral of removal under the CAT. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d). She denied that claim after determining that Adigun had not suffered past torture, and that the objective evidence did not support Adigun’s subjective belief that he would be tortured …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals