Okezie Orji v. Jefferson Sessions, 694 F. App'x 544

Petitioner Okezie Augustus Orji, a Nigerian national, challenges the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
Orji previously sought post-conviction relief under California Penal Code § 1203.4; the BIA denied sua sponte reopening in June 2015, concluding that § 1203.4 expungement does not eliminate immigration consequences.
Orji did not timely petition for review of the BIA’s June 2015 order, so that post-conviction-relief issue is not before the court.
On remand, the BIA in May 2016 affirmed removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and the IJ’s adverse credibility finding that supported denial of asylum.
Orji’s pro se briefs failed to adequately challenge the adverse credibility determination; he also waived or failed to exhaust other claims (withholding/CAT waived; § 212(h) and petty-offense contentions unexhausted).
The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part; Orji’s renewed stay request was denied as unnecessary (previous stay remains until mandate).

Issue	Orji’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether BIA should have considered § 1203.4 post-conviction relief in 2016 order	§ 1203.4 expungement removes immigration consequences	June 2015 BIA decision resolved § 1203.4 issue; Orji failed to timely seek review	Not before court — Orji failed to seek review of 2015 order; BIA did not err in 2016 by omitting it
Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding was properly sustained	Orji contested credibility of IJ’s adverse finding	IJ’s finding supported denial of asylum; Orji’s pro se briefs insufficiently challenge it	Court concluded briefs waived/abandoned challenge; denial stands
Whether withholding of removal and CAT relief were wrongly denied	Orji sought these protections	These claims were previously waived on appeal	Claims waived — cannot be relitigated
Whether Orji’s § 212(h) waiver or petty-offense exception apply	Orji argued waiver/exception apply to remove inadmissibility	Government: claims unexhausted before BIA	Court lacks jurisdiction to consider unexhausted contentions

Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2009) (expungement under Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4 generally does not eliminate a state conviction for immigration purposes)
Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011) (overruling aspects of prior precedent on other grounds)
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues mentioned but not argued in a brief are deemed abandoned)
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day petition-for-review time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be tolled)
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2010) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider claims not exhausted before the agency)
Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for review of evidence submitted outside the administrative record)
Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2011) (procedural requirements for challenging bond determinations)