Michael Ajiboye v. Jefferson Sessions
694 F. App'x 502
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Michael Ade Ajiboye, a Nigerian national and U.S. lawful permanent resident, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- He has 1998 federal convictions: mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and possession of ≥15 unauthorized access devices (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3)).
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded those convictions were "particularly serious crimes," barring asylum, withholding, and CAT withholding.
- Ajiboye challenged the BIA’s determinations to the Ninth Circuit; the government argued jurisdictional limits over fact-based challenges to particularly serious crime findings.
- Ajiboye also asserted procedural due process violations and sought CAT protection based on risk from Nigerian authorities; the BIA rejected those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Ajiboye's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s "particularly serious crime" determination | Court may review legal/constitutional questions about the determination | IIRIRA removes jurisdiction over fact-based challenges to such findings | Court retained jurisdiction to review for abuse of discretion limited to legal/constitutional issues and whether BIA used appropriate factors/evidence |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in finding Ajiboye’s 1998 convictions were "particularly serious crimes" | Convictions were not sufficiently serious to bar relief | Convictions, plea facts, sentence, restitution, and lack of remorse support the finding | BIA did not abuse its discretion; relied on appropriate factors/evidence |
| Whether Ajiboye exhausted administrative remedies for a procedural due process claim | Denied that he failed to exhaust; merits should be considered | He did not raise the due process claim before the BIA, so remedies not exhausted | Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the unexhausted procedural due process claim |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief (including risk from Sharia police and safety in other regions) | He faces torture or persecution if returned | Record lacks evidence he is wanted by Sharia police and supports safe internal relocation | Substantial evidence supports BIA denial of CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444 (9th Cir.) (jurisdiction exists over legal or constitutional questions concerning particularly serious crime determinations)
- Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379 (9th Cir.) (standards for reviewing particularly serious crime determinations and appropriate factors to consider)
- Avendano-Hernandez v. Holder, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.) (court may review for abuse of discretion whether BIA used appropriate factors/evidence)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir.) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies precludes judicial review of certain claims)