Jacob Ajomale v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-2268 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2268 JACOB OLAKUNLE AJOMALE, a/k/a Emmanuel Adegoke, a/k/a Jacob Asomale, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 20, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jacob Nigeria, Olakunle petitions Immigration for Appeals immigration of review ( Board ) judge s withholding Ajomale, denial removal, and a an of native order dismissing of his and of his the under of Board of from appeal requests protection citizen the for asylum, the Convention for asylum Against Torture. A determination regarding eligibility or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (2006). Legal issues to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) are reviewed the [Board] s de novo, affording appropriate deference [Immigration and regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only if the Nationality Act] interpretation and any of the attendant evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 316, 296 F.3d 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly 2 contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial Ajomale failed evidence to supports demonstrate a the agency s well-founded finding fear of that future persecution in Nigeria on account of a protected ground. We therefore uphold the denial of Ajomale s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. 367 (4th Cir. 2004) See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, ( Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). ). Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Ajomale failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. Ajomale failed 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2011). to make the requisite deny the We find that showing before the review. We immigration court. Accordingly, dispense with oral we argument petition because 3 the for facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
