Solomon Ogbemudia v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 16-60513 Document: 00514490488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 16-60513 May 29, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SOLOMON OGBEMUDIA, also known as Paul Hamilton, also known as Ipaluyi, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A028 582 309 Before WIENER, DENNIS and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Solomon Ogbemudia, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”’s) denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He also petitions for review of the BIA’s denials of his motion to reopen and his subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. The * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 16-60513 Document: 00514490488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 No. 16-60513 BIA affirmed the IJ’s determinations that Ogbemudia was not credible, that he failed to adequately corroborate his claims, and that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT. When considering a petition for review, this court has the authority to review only the BIA’s decision, not the IJ’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on the BIA’s decision. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Here, this court may review the IJ’s ruling because the BIA referenced and relied on the IJ’s ruling in its decision. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). An immigration court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). This court may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 536–37. Among the findings of fact that this court reviews for substantial evidence is the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for relief under the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Ogbemudia argues that he was entitled to relief under the CAT for four reasons. His testimony revealed that he had been tortured in the past by state actors or with the acquiescence of state actors due to his homosexuality. Nigeria’s new Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act criminalized homosexuality. He had provided testimony that a friend had been killed in Nigeria because he was gay. His criminal history has no bearing on his eligibility for relief under the CAT. He also challenges the IJ’s determination that his testimony was not credible and was uncorroborated. He argues that his supporting documentary evidence was confiscated during his transfer to the immigration detention center; that the asylum officer failed to write down his statement during his reasonable ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals