Olakunle Olaitan v. William P. Barr, No. 19-2396 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion for remand; the court would not consider issues or evidence raised for the first time in the petition for review.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2396 ___________________________ Olakunle Olamide Olaitan lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 2, 2020 Filed: March 25, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Nigerian citizen Olakunle Olamide Olaitan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied his motion to remand his case to the immigration judge (IJ).1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. This court concludes the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying remand. See Caballero-Martinez v. Barr, 920 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). To the extent Olaitan asks this court to consider how his removal may result in hardship to his wife, this court declines to consider issues or evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 616 (8th Cir. 2014) (aliens may appeal only issues exhausted at administrative level); Lukowski v. INS, 279 F.3d 644, 646 (8th Cir. 2002) (“judicial review is limited to the administrative record”). The petition is denied, and the motion to supplement the record is denied as moot. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The portion of the BIA’s order dismissing Olaitan’s appeal from the IJ and the IJ’s decision are not before this panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised in opening brief is waived). -2-
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.
