Opinion ID: 6216735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The IJ’s April 15, 2019 Decision

Text: After hearings at which Ojo testified, the IJ ruled on the merits of his claims for immigration relief. The IJ found that Ojo was credible in his testimony, but denied all forms of immigration relief requested. First, with respect to Ojo’s asylum claim, the IJ determined that Ojo did not merit an exception to the one-year bar because his purported “changed and extraordinary circumstances” were “intentionally created by him through his own action or inaction” in that he caused his criminal conviction to occur. Cert. Admin. R. at 49 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)). The IJ also concluded that Ojo’s fear of Boko Haram did not increase as a result of Boko Haram’s designation as a terrorist organization, and thus he could not show changed circumstances as to his religious persecution claim. Cert. Admin. R. at 49. As an alternative holding, while the IJ found Ojo’s testimony credible, the IJ refused to exercise his discretion because Ojo’s crime involved moral turpitude and denied his asylum application. Second, the IJ held that Ojo was convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” and thus ineligible for withholding of removal, because his conviction involved “a crime against persons, which brings it into the ambit of a particularly serious crime.” Cert. Admin. R. at 50. The IJ noted the facts of Ojo’s particular crimes – 8 namely, the number of victims and total loss – supported the ultimate determination that “his conviction [for] a particularly serious crime” disqualified him from withholding of removal. Cert. Admin. R. at 50–51. In fact, as discussed further below, Ojo was not per se convicted of a particularly serious crime. Cert. Admin. R. at 50. Finally, the IJ denied CAT protection, finding that Ojo failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that he would more likely than not be tortured in Nigeria. After noting that the IJ must consider all available evidence, the IJ relied upon the International Religious Freedom Report and the Department of State Country Report to reject his CAT claim based on his religion. With respect to his claim that he would be arrested, detained, and tortured in Nigeria as a criminal deportee, the IJ referenced Ojo’s testimony about another criminal deportee being tortured in Nigeria and found “[i]t is speculative that the same would happen to [Ojo].” Cert. Admin. R. at 52. Thus, without addressing any other evidence in the record on this issue (including the Ugochukwu Declaration), the IJ concluded that Ojo “failed to meet his high burden of proof to show that he would be tortured in Nigeria by or with government acquiescence.” Cert. Admin. R. at 52. 9