Degbe v. Sessions, No. 17-1338 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's request for asylum, withholding of removal, and application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his claim that he faced danger in his home country of Ghana. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the timeliness of petitioner's asylum application; the evidence petitioner submitted to support his request to remand based on changed country conditions was immaterial and did not support a remand based on changed country conditions; and petitioner's claim of humanitarian asylum was foreclosed because he failed to raise this issue to the agency.
The court also held that petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future persecution or torture. In this case, petitioner's evidence would not compel all reasonable factfinders to conclude that his life or freedom would be endangered by a return to Ghana. Therefore, the court denied his petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal. Likewise, petitioner's claim for relief under the CAT also failed.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. This opinion is being issued by Chief Judge Smith and Judge Colloton pursuant to 8th Cir. R. 47E. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the agency's decision with respect to the timeliness of petitioner's asylum application; the evidence petitioner presented to the BIA in support of his request to remand based on changed country conditions was unlikely to have changed the result in the case and was, therefore, immaterial; petitioner's argument that he should have been granted humanitarian asylum was not presented to the agency and could not be considered in this petition for review; the agency did not err in determining that political progress toward democratic rule in Ghana made it unlikely that petitioner would face future persecution or torture if he were returned to Ghana, and the agency did not err in denying his withholding of removal and CAT claims.
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.