United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1154

___________

Okechukwu Damian Ejimadu, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

* Petition for Review of a Final

v. * Decision of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * 

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2007

Filed: February 26, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Okechukwa Ejimadu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which adopted and affirmed the

decision of the immigration judge (IJ), denying Ejimadu's requests for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition.

Ejimadu entered the United States on or about September 1, 1998, as a nonimmigrant visitor and remained longer than authorized. Removal proceedings were

commenced on December 9, 2003, and Ejimadu was charged with being removable
-2-

for having remained in the United States beyond the authorized period. In January

2004, Ejimadu conceded removability, and in March 2004, he applied for asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief, alleging that if returned to Nigeria, he would

be persecuted or tortured for his past violations of "Sharia" law and because of his

Christian religion. 

Ejimadu, who is from Imo, in southeast Nigeria, alleged that, in 1991when he

was attending a university in Kaduna (a Muslim-majority state in northern Nigeria)

he and his Muslim girlfriend drank alcoholic beverages in Ejimadu's apartment in

front of Muslim guests. According to Ejimadu, the Muslim guests were offended by

both the consumption of alcohol and his relationship, as a Christian, with a Muslim

woman, which were violations of "Sharia," which Ejimadu explained was the strict

way of life followed by Muslims. Ejimadu alleged that one or more of the guests

reported his conduct to individuals who Ejimadu identified as enforcers of Sharia law.

Ejimadu heard that the Sharia enforcers were going to take action against him so he

fled Kaduna and went back to his family region in Imo. From 1991 until he entered

the United States, Ejimadu continued to live in Imo without ever being arrested by or

suffering any harm from the Sharia enforcers.

The IJ denied Ejimadu asylum because his application was untimely and denied

him withholding of removal and CAT relief because he had not shown it was more

likely than not he would be persecuted or tortured in Nigeria. Ejimadu appealed to the

BIA. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision, noting that the IJ "properly

found that [Ejimadu was] ineligible for asylum . . . as a result of his failure to file his

asylum application within one year of the date of his arrival in the United States or to

establish either changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the delay

in filing." Furthermore, the BIA agreed with the IJ's conclusion that Ejimadu "failed

to meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal . . . and protection under the

Convention Against Torture." The BIA then dismissed Ejimadu's appeal.
1

Although Ejimadu claims he was in hiding during this time, he acknowledged

that he attended law school at a state university in Imo for five years during this time.

-3-

Ejimadu again appeals, claiming that his asylum claim should not have been

dismissed for failure to file within the one-year period. Ejimadu also asserts that his

other claims for relief were dismissed based upon his failure to seek asylum within the

one year period required by law, even though withholding of removal and CAT relief

claims are not subject to the one-year period. 

Initially, we hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's determination that

Ejimadu's asylum application was barred as untimely. See 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(a)(3) ("No

court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General

under [8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)]"); Tolego v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 763, 766 (8th Cir.

2006) ("[T]his court lacks jurisdiction to review either the IJ's determination that the

asylum application was not timely filed or the Attorney General's decision rejecting

the applicant's complaint of changed circumstances"); Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d

975, 988–89 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that judicial review of finding that alien did not

show changed or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing asylum

application is precluded).

Additionally, after carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that Ejimadu's

withholding of removal and CAT relief claims were dismissed on the merits, and that

substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal and denial of CAT

relief. See Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 870, 872 (8th Cir. 2006)

(stating the standard of review). The IJ determined that Ejimadu's Sharia-based claims

were implausible, as there was "no evidence that [Ejimadu] would have to fear being

targeted by the Sharia courts in Nigeria at this time," and there was "insufficient

evidence in the record to make a finding that [Ejimadu] would have fears of

marauding Sharia court enforcers coming to his area of Nigeria to track him down for"

the 1991 incident. Furthermore, Ejimadu's own testimony showed that he was never

subjected to any persecution or torture by the Sharia enforcers in the seven years he

remained in Nigeria following the 1991 incident.1
-4-

Moreover, Ejimadu traveled outside of Nigeria twice between 1991 and 1998,

both times voluntarily returning to Nigeria. Neither time was Ejimadu subjected to

persecution or harassment of any kind when he reentered Nigeria at the airport in

Lagos, despite his claims that the Sharia-supporting customs or immigration officials

working at the airport would immediately take him into custody if he was returned to

Nigeria.

With respect to Ejimadu's claims that he would be subjected to persecution or

torture because of his Christianity, the evidence presented showed that 40% of Nigeria

was Christian, while the southeastern region, including Ejimadu's homeland of Imo,

is predominantly Christian. Further, Ejimadu's testimony showed that neither he nor

any of his family members, who are Christian, had been subjected to such persecution

based on their religious beliefs.

Because Ejimadu's claims contained a "large number of serious

implausibilities," the IJ "seriously question[ed]" Ejimadu's credibility. These

credibility findings are entitled to deference, as they were supported by specific,

cogent reasons. Ibrahim v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (8th Cir. 2006); Sheikh

v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1077, 1081 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that adverse credibility

determination as to core of persecution testimony is dispositive of withholding of

removal claim); Yang v. United States Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 521–23 (2d Cir.

2005) (upholding denial of CAT relief based on adverse credibility determination with

respect to specific fact upon which CAT claim was premised).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________