NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Monsuru Wole Sho,

Petitioner,

v.

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-1414

Agency No. A094-950-100

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted February 15, 2023

San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Monsuru Wole Sho, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

1

 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252, and we grant the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1 The IJ found Sho statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal 

after determining that his prior kidnapping conviction constituted a particularly 

serious crime. Sho only appeals the agency’s CAT determination.

FILED

MAR 1 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 Case: 21-1414, 03/01/2023, DktEntry: 50.1, Page 1 of 5
2 21-1414

“We review de novo claims of . . . due process violations in removal 

proceedings.” Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). 

“To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [the 

petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.” Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). Where, as here, the BIA adopted and affirmed the 

IJ’s decision pursuant to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 

1994), we “revisit both decisions and treat the IJ’s reasons as those of the BIA.”

Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011).

1. In support of his asylum application, Sho submitted two documents 

demonstrating he had been targeted for persecution as a homosexual: an extract 

from a Nigerian police diary detailing Sho’s arrest for participating in a 

homosexual act, and a Nigerian wanted poster stating that Sho had jumped bail 

for a homosexual offense. Sho argues that the agency violated his right to due 

process by relying on a report of investigation (“ROI”) from the U.S. Embassy 

Fraud Prevention Program, which concluded that the two documents were 

forged, without affording him a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 

reliability of the ROI. 

According to the ROI, an unnamed investigator visited the Kaduna State 

Command, and “[a]fter a series of telephone calls and verifications, it was 

discovered” that the officer who signed the police diary never served at the 

Maraba police station, the officer’s personnel number did not exist, and the 

police diary’s letterhead, form, signature, and stamp were “irregular.” In 

 Case: 21-1414, 03/01/2023, DktEntry: 50.1, Page 2 of 5
3 21-1414

addition, an unnamed police commissioner’s assistant explained that the wanted 

poster was not authentic because it failed to conform to the proper format. 

We hold that the introduction of the ROI violated Sho’s due process 

rights because he was not provided “a meaningful opportunity to rebut the 

government’s fraud allegations.” Grigoryan v. Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th 

Cir. 2020). The ROI at issue here suffers from similar deficiencies to the ROI

in Grigoryan. In both, the Department of Homeland Security failed to “identify 

any of the named individuals, present supporting evidence to explain the nature 

of the investigation, produce the referenced exemplars, or proffer any 

government witnesses about the alleged fraud.” Id. There is no indication that 

the investigator here sought to obtain exemplars to confirm that the proffered 

documents were missing information. The agency erred in admitting the ROI 

without affording Sho a meaningful opportunity to rebut its conclusions. See id.

(citing Banat v. Holder, 557 F.3d 886, 891 (8th Cir. 2009); Anim v. Mukasey, 

535 F.3d 243, 256–58 (4th Cir. 2008); Alexandrov v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 395, 

407 (6th Cir. 2006)).

2. The erroneous introduction of the ROI prejudiced Sho. To 

establish prejudice, a petitioner must show that “the outcome of the proceeding 

may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Id. (quoting Colmenar v. 

INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000)). “The standard does not demand 

absolute certainty.” Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 

2005).

 Case: 21-1414, 03/01/2023, DktEntry: 50.1, Page 3 of 5
4 21-1414

In Udo v. Garland, 32 F.4th 1198 (9th Cir. 2022), the agency denied the 

petitioner’s CAT claim after finding his testimony lacked credibility and he 

“failed to establish that he is gay or that he was ever harmed in Nigeria for 

being a gay person.” Id. at 1203. We remanded the case because the agency 

“failed to give reasoned consideration to key evidence that was independent of 

Udo’s testimony”—namely, an “excommunication notice” that stated the 

petitioner was caught practicing prohibited sexual acts, as well as affidavits and 

letters from family members detailing the violence committed against the 

petitioner after he was discovered with his boyfriend. Id. at 1201.

By relying on the ROI, the IJ disregarded independent evidence of Sho’s 

arrest and detention for being homosexual as detailed in a police diary and a 

wanted poster describing the continuing search for him in Nigeria. These 

documents are potentially dispositive of Sho’s CAT claim because they 

independently confirm Sho’s homosexuality, past arrest and detention, and 

likelihood of future torture. In addition, the police documents could have 

“corroborated [Sho’s] testimony had they not been deemed fraudulent.” 

Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir. 2009).

2

We grant the petition and remand to the BIA so that it may grant Sho a 

2 We need not reach Sho’s argument that the record compels a reversal of the 

agency’s adverse credibility finding. After a new hearing in which Sho has a 

meaningful opportunity to challenge the ROI, the IJ may then assess his 

credibility based on all available information. “There is no reason to prejudge 

that determination.” Cinapian, 567 F.3d at 1077.

 Case: 21-1414, 03/01/2023, DktEntry: 50.1, Page 4 of 5
5 21-1414

new hearing. The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 2) is granted. The 

stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION GRANTED. 

 Case: 21-1414, 03/01/2023, DktEntry: 50.1, Page 5 of 5