Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02020/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Bilikisu M. Kawu
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2020

___________

Bilikisu M. Kawu, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the 

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2004

Filed: November 17, 2004 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bilikisu Kawu petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Kawu’s

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture

(CAT) relief, and denied her motion to reopen. We deny the petition.

Kawu, a citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States in September 1996,

overstayed her tourist visa, and applied for asylum and withholding of removal in

July 1998. In July 1999 the former Immigration and Naturalization Service charged

Appellate Case: 03-2020 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2004 Entry ID: 1834951 
1

The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for

purposes of judicial review. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 679 n.1 (8th

Cir. 2003).

-2-

her with being deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for remaining in the United

States beyond the permitted time. 

Kawu conceded removability, renewed her application for asylum and

withholding of removal, and applied for voluntary departure and CAT relief. In

support of her application, Kawu testified that she attended the University of Lagos

in Nigeria from 1991-96, and that, because of her student-union activities she was

forced to change from studying physical therapy to pharmacology. She testified that

she was arrested and detained twice for about a week each time; during these

detentions she was beaten, mostly on the soles of her feet. 

The IJ denied Kawu asylum finding that she had failed to apply timely, within

the one-year deadline imposed by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), and had not shown

extraordinary circumstances that would have allowed her to file a late application

under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). In addition, the IJ found that Kawu did not show she

had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution, and

denied Kawu withholding of removal and CAT relief, but granted voluntary

departure. 

Kawu appealed to the BIA and moved to supplement the record and for

remand, contending that she feared her infant daughter would be forced to undergo

female genital mutilation if Kawu were forced to return to Nigeria. The BIA affirmed

without opinion the IJ’s denial of asylum,1

 denied Kawu’s motion to supplement, and

reinstated the grant of voluntary departure.

Appellate Case: 03-2020 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2004 Entry ID: 1834951 
-3-

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Kawu did not show

changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying her untimely asylum application.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review Attorney

General’s determination as to timeliness of asylum application). 

For purposes of reviewing the denial of withholding of removal, however, we

review the IJ’s additional finding that Kawu did not show she suffered past

persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution, and we conclude

substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975,

989 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review; reviewing IJ’s alternate finding of no wellfounded fear of persecution for purposes of reviewing denial of withholding of

removal); Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2004) (minor

beatings and brief detentions do not amount to political persecution). Thus, we

conclude that the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal should be affirmed. See

Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551, 553-55 (8th Cir. 1999) (withholding-ofremoval standard is more difficult to meet than asylum standard). 

Kawu’s argument that she should be given an opportunity to seek relief under

the CAT fails, because Kawu in fact applied for CAT relief but failed to show it was

more likely than not that she would be tortured upon return to Nigeria. See

Prokopenko v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 941, 943 n.1 (8th Cir. 2004).

Finally, we construe Kawu’s motion to supplement as a motion to reopen, see

8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c) (2003), and we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion

in denying the motion, see Boudaguian v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 825, 828-29 (8th Cir.

2004).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. Kawu moved for a stay of

deportation before her voluntary-departure period expired, and we therefore deem this

court’s grant of her unopposed motion for a stay to include a stay of her

Appellate Case: 03-2020 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2004 Entry ID: 1834951 
-4-

voluntary-departure period as well. See Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 606, 616 (8th Cir.

2004).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2020 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/17/2004 Entry ID: 1834951