Opinion ID: 6216735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The BIA’s September 27, 2019 Decision

Text: Petitioner, appearing pro se, appealed to the BIA. He argued, inter alia, the following: (1) the “IJ’s decision was based on the erroneous denial of the exception to the one-year filing deadline”; (2) the IJ erred in determining his conviction was “particularly serious” barring withholding of removal; and (3) the IJ overlooked the Ugochukwu Declaration. Cert. Admin. R. at 41–42. In September 2019, the BIA dismissed Ojo’s appeal. 2 The BIA affirmed the denial of asylum on the two alternative grounds found by the IJ. In particular, the BIA concluded that Ojo’s arrest and subsequent detention could not constitute changed or extraordinary circumstances “because these events were caused by his own criminal conduct.” Cert. Admin. R. at 5 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)–(5) for the proposition that the burden rests with the applicant to establish that the circumstances were not created by him). Moreover, the BIA observed that the applicant for asylum bears the burden of establishing that a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted and that Ojo did not “meaningfully challenge[]” the IJ’s discretionary denial. Cert. Admin. R. at 5. As to the withholding of removal, the 2 Although the September 2019 decision by the BIA also addresses Ojo’s arguments in connection with a prior IJ’s July 17, 2018 decision finding him removable, this opinion confines its summary of the BIA’s decision to the rulings and findings relevant to the instant appeal. 10 BIA found that the IJ “examined the individualized characteristics of [Ojo’s] offenses and determined that – based on the nature of the convictions and the underlying circumstances of the case – [Ojo] had been convicted of a particularly serious crime,” Cert. Admin. R. at 6 (observing that the IJ accounted for the type of crimes, the number of victims, and the restitution owed), but did not comment on the categorization of his conviction as including a crime against persons. Finally, with respect to the CAT claim, the BIA stated that “the record reflects that the Immigration Judge used the correct standard of review, reviewed the entire record, and did not clearly err in making his determination that it is not more likely than [not] that [Ojo] would be tortured if removed to Nigeria.” Cert. Admin. R. at 7. This appeal followed.