Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01735/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Taiwo Rufus Agboola
Petitioner
John Ashcroft
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1735

___________

Taiwo Rufus Agboola, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the *

United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2004

Filed: May 10, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Taiwo Rufus Agboola, a Nigerian citizen, seeks review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his application for

asylum. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition. See MenendezDonis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).

Agboola generally argues that his procedural and substantive due process rights

were violated because the immigration judge (IJ) disallowed the testimony of his

expert witness. We disagree. See Escudero-Corona v. INS, 244 F.3d 608, 614 (8th

Appellate Case: 03-1735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2004 Entry ID: 1765222 
-2-

Cir. 2001) (reviewing constitutional challenges de novo). Agboola has not described

testimony the proposed expert would have provided that might have changed the IJ’s

conclusive determinations. See Kerciku v. INS, 314 F.3d 913, 918 (7th Cir. 2003)

(per curiam) (to find due process violation, applicant must show he was prejudiced

by IJ’s refusal to hear testimony, i.e., that testimony had potential for affecting

outcome). Nor has he explained how the IJ’s decision to exclude the testimony at

issue constituted a substantive due process violation. Cf. Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d

541, 547-48 (8th Cir. 2003) (substantive due process claim requires showing that

government officials’ arbitrary action was conscience-shocking). 

Agboola also argues that he should have received asylum based on his religious

beliefs and membership in a particular social group. This argument fails as well. The

IJ based his asylum decision primarily on his determination that Agboola had

misrepresented a material fact by submitting a fraudulent document. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (alien who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact,

seeks to procure admission to United States is inadmissible). The IJ also gave

multiple other reasons for finding that Agboola’s assertions regarding a fear of

persecution were not credible. We, like the BIA, defer to the IJ’s credibility findings,

as they are well supported by the record and by specific cogent reasons. See Loulou

v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 709 (8th Cir. 2003), amended by, No. 02-3004, slip op.

(8th Cir. April 28, 2004).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2004 Entry ID: 1765222