Court Opinion

ID: 9402334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 17:01:25.039825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:59.170592
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 _____________

                                       No. 22-2468
                                     ______________
                           WILFRED OLUFEMI WILLIAMS,
                                                Petitioner

                                             v.

           ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                            ______________

                              On Petition for Review of an
                       Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
                               (Agency No. 060-230-075)

                             Immigration Judge: Jack H. Weil
                                   ______________
                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                    May 18, 2023
                                  ______________

           Before: GREENAWAY, JR., PHIPPS, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges.

                              (Opinion Filed: June 15, 2023)

                                     ______________

                                        OPINION *
                                     ______________

       *
        This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,
does not constitute binding precedent.
GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

       Petitioner Wilfred Olufemi Williams seeks review of an order entered by an

immigration judge (“IJ”) and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

finding him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and denying protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Williams makes three arguments in

favor of review: (1) the IJ failed to apply the circumstance-specific approach when

evaluating whether Williams’s conviction qualified as an aggravated felony charge; (2)

the BIA erred in determining that Williams was convicted of a particularly serious crime,

thus making him ineligible for withholding of removal; and (3) the BIA erred in

concluding that Williams is ineligible for deferral of removal under CAT. For the

following reasons, we will deny Williams’s petition for review.

 I.    BACKGROUND

          A. Factual Background

       Wilfred Olufemi Williams, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was admitted to the

United States on October 5, 2008, as a lawful permanent resident. On August 10, 2017,

he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1956(h). The District Court sentenced him to 48 months imprisonment. On

March 8, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security served Williams with a Notice to

Appear (“NTA”), charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

On April 1, 2021, Williams, appearing in Immigration Court, admitted allegations related

to his citizenship and admission to the United States and denied allegations that he was

convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering and the NTA’s charges of

                                            2
removability. On April 28, 2021, Williams applied for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under CAT.

       On July 7, 2021, the IJ conducted a merits hearing at which Williams presented

testimony to support his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under CAT. After considering the evidence, which included conviction documents and

the plea agreement, as well as Williams’s testimony, the IJ found Williams credible but

denied relief from removal. Specifically, the IJ found that Williams’s conviction

constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D) and (a)(43)(U). The IJ

also found that the aggravated felony was a particularly serious crime, making Williams

eligible for removal. The IJ denied Williams’s CAT claim, finding that Williams failed

to establish a clear probability of persecution or torture. Williams timely appealed the

IJ’s decision to the BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Williams’s

appeal.

       Williams timely petitioned for review.

II.    JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

       The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3). This Court has

jurisdiction to review decisions issued by BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, but that

jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and matters of law. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D). We nonetheless have jurisdiction over factual challenges in so far as

they relate to Williams’s CAT claim. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1689, 1692

(2020).

       When “the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision and adds analysis of its own, we review

                                             3
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Martinez v. Att’y Gen., 693 F.3d 408, 411 (3d

Cir. 2012).

       We review factual challenges to the CAT denial under the “highly deferential”

substantial evidence standard where the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Nasrallah,

140 S. Ct. at 1692; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

III.   DISCUSSION

       Williams argues that (1) the BIA erred in concluding that his conviction

constitutes an aggravated felony; (2) the BIA concluded that he was not eligible for

withholding of removal due to his conviction of a particularly serious crime as a result of

his aggravated felony; and (3) the BIA erred in denying CAT deferral.

          A. Removal

                  i. Aggravated Felony

       Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), “[a]ny [non-citizen] who is

convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). An “aggravated felony” is defined to include money laundering

offenses “described in section 1956 of Title 18 . . . if the amount of the funds exceeded

$10,000,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D), or a “conspiracy to commit [that] offense,”

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U). An aggravated felony also counts as a per se particularly

serious crime for purposes of asylum, making that relief unavailable to a noncitizen

convicted of such an offense. See id. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (b)(2)(B)(i). Williams argues

that the BIA incorrectly applied the circumstance-specific approach in Nijhawan v.

                                             4
Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009), in arriving at its conclusion that his conviction did not meet

the $10,000 threshold that constitutes an aggravated felony.

       To determine whether the amount of funds associated with his conviction

exceeded $10,000, the agency must look to “the specific circumstances surrounding an

offender's commission of a fraud and deceit crime on a specific occasion.” Nijhawan v.

Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 40 (2009). This “circumstance-specific” approach requires that the

loss be “tethered” to the actual “offense of conviction” and be proven by clear and

convincing evidence. Id. at 42; Singh v. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 503, 508 (3d Cir. 2012).

       The materials here show that the amount of funds associated with Williams’s

conviction exceeded $10,000. In the plea agreement, Williams pleaded guilty “to Count

Two of the Indictment . . . which charge[d] him with conspiracy to commit money

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)[.]” A.R. 423. In the restitution section of

the plea agreement, Williams agreed to a Restitution Order “of the full amount of the

actual, total loss caused by the offense” and agreed to the “amount of $394,617, payable

to various individual victims[.]” A.R. 427. The presentence investigation report

concluded that Williams was responsible for $397,617. 1 This information is clear and

convincing evidence that the conspiracy’s victims suffered losses that exceeded $10,000.

Accordingly, we find that the agency correctly applied the circumstance-specific

approach in concluding his conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony rendering him

removable and ineligible for asylum.

1
 While there is a discrepancy in the amounts listed in the restitution order and
presentence report, there is no dispute that the amount of funds is more than $10,000.
                                             5
                 ii. Particularly Serious Crime

       Under the INA, those with aggravated felony convictions “sentenced to an

aggregate term of imprisonment of at least 5 years shall be considered to have committed

a particularly serious crime” and are not eligible for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. §

1231(b)(3)(B). For times when a crime is not per se particularly serious, Congress has

authorized the Attorney General to determine “on a case-by-case basis, whether the facts

and circumstances of a conviction also support concluding that an individual [non-

citizen] committed a particularly serious crime.” Bastardo-Vale v. Att’y Gen., 934 F.3d

255, 262 (3d Cir. 2019) (en banc). This finding is made by “taking into consideration

‘such factors as [1] the nature of the conviction, [2] the circumstances and underlying

facts of the conviction, [3] the type of sentence imposed, and, most importantly, [4]

whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the alien will be a danger to

the community.’” Luziga v. Att’y Gen., 937 F.3d 244, 252 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Matter

of Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244, 247 (B.I.A. 1982)). Williams argues that the BIA

erroneously determined that his conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime.

       In affirming the IJ’s determination that Williams’s conviction constituted a

particularly serious crime, the BIA properly evaluated the relevant criteria. The IJ

properly considered the length of Williams’s 4-year sentence, noting that it was below the

statutory maximum. The IJ properly considered the nature of Williams’s conviction,

noting that William’s crime involved 16 victims and spanned 12 states. Finally, the IJ

properly considered the circumstances underlying Williams’s conviction, noting that

Williams accepted responsibility for his crime. The BIA, drawing a similar conclusion,

                                             6
noted the length of the sentence, the nature of the conviction, and the circumstances

underlying the conviction. We find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Williams’s

conviction was a particularly serious crime that makes him ineligible for withholding of

removal. See Sunuwar v. Att’y Gen., 989 F.3d 239, 250 (recognizing that the BIA has

“broad discretion” to determine whether an offense is a particularly serious crime).

       We will deny Williams’s petition as to his claim for withholding of removal.

          B. CAT Protection

       To be eligible for deferral of removal under CAT, an applicant must “establish that

it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed

country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The applicant must show that they would

be tortured by government officials or that “public officials will acquiesce in the likely

treatment.” Quinteros v. Att’y Gen., 945 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 2019). To determine

whether an applicant has met their burden, the IJ must answer: “(1) what is likely to

happen to the petitioner if removed; and (2) does what is likely to happen amount to the

legal definition of torture?” Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 516 (3d Cir. 2017)

(quoting Kaplun v. Att'y Gen., 602 F.3d 260, 271 (3d Cir. 2010)).

       The IJ must “review[] the evidence and determine[] future events more likely than

not to occur.” Id. This is a factual finding that BIA reviews for clear error. Id. Then the

IJ “determines whether the likely harm qualifies as torture under the governing

regulations,” a question the BIA reviews de novo. Id. To assess whether an applicant

has established acquiescence, the IJ must (1) “make[] a factual finding or findings as to

how public officials will likely act in response to the harm the [non-citizen] fears” and (2)

                                              7
“assess [] whether the likely response from public officials qualifies as acquiescence

under the governing regulations.” Id. The BIA reviews the factual finding for clear error

and the likely response de novo. Id. at 516-17.

       Williams argues that the BIA erred in determining that he was not eligible for

deferral of removal because there is sufficient evidence in the record to show that he will

be tortured in Nigeria due to his diagnosis of PTSD.

       The BIA correctly determined that Williams was not eligible for deferral of

removal under CAT because he failed to show that he more likely than not would face

harm amounting to torture upon his return to Nigeria. Williams claims that he will be

individually targeted and forcibly institutionalized upon his return to Nigeria and not

provided with adequate mental health care. 2 Williams provides no more than mere

speculation as the basis for his assertion that he would be institutionalized in torturous

conditions, and speculation is insufficient to meet his burden. See In re J-F-F-, 23 I. &

N. Dec. 912, 917–18 & n.4 (A.G. 2006). While Williams presented reports detailing the

disturbing treatment of the mentally ill in Nigeria, evidence of substandard mental health

care, without more, is insufficient to show a likelihood of torture. See Matter of R-A-F-,

27 I. & N. Dec. 778, 780-81 (A.G. 2020) (explaining that “poor conditions in . . . mental

health facilities” is not enough to “evince the kind of specific intent to cause pain and

suffering . . . required to establish torture.”) The BIA did not err in concluding that the

evidence did not compel the conclusion that he would more likely than not be subject to

2
  Williams admits that the potential harm is not particularized to him but general as “the
treatment of mentally ill persons runs across the entirety of Nigeria.” Pet.’r’s Br. at 19.
                                              8
torture upon his return to Nigeria. See Kang v. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 157, 166 (3d Cir.

2010) (observing that, to warrant CAT relief, the evidence must compel the conclusion

that the petitioner has met his burden.)

IV.    CONCLUSION

       For the preceding reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

                                            9