Olakunle A. Oshodi v. U.S. Attorney General, 23-12400

Olakunle Oshodi, a Nigerian citizen, has resided illegally in the U.S. since 1982 and has undergone removal proceedings for nearly 20 years.
Oshodi applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); prior felony convictions later barred him from asylum or withholding, leaving only CAT deferral as possible relief.
His initial denial by an immigration judge (IJ) was reviewed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit for procedural reasons (lack of opportunity to testify).
After a federal drug conviction and imprisonment, Oshodi’s removal proceedings were transferred to Georgia, where his CAT claim was ultimately denied following a February 2023 hearing.
Both the IJ and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found Oshodi had not demonstrated he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Nigeria.
Oshodi petitioned for review in the Eleventh Circuit, arguing the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to key evidence and that its decision lacked substantial evidentiary support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the BIA give reasoned consideration to Oshodi's CAT claim?	BIA misstated or ignored highly relevant evidence supporting torture risk.	BIA gave adequate and reasoned consideration to all material evidence.	Court held BIA gave sufficient reasoned consideration to highly relevant evidence.
Was there substantial evidence to support denial of Oshodi’s CAT claim?	Evidence shows he is likely to be tortured based on political history and arrest warrant in Nigeria.	Evidence does not show likely torture; political climate has changed and testimony is speculative.	Substantial evidence supports BIA’s conclusion that Oshodi failed to show he is more likely than not to be tortured.

Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2013) (case remanded for lack of opportunity to testify at original removal hearing)
Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (sets standards for CAT deferral requirements)
Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2010) (clarifies standards for reviewing BIA decisions)
Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (addresses evidentiary sufficiency under CAT claims)
Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2019) (threshold for reasoned consideration in BIA decisions)
Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2006) (addresses standards of review for factual findings in immigration appeals)
Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (generalized mistreatment is insufficient to establish CAT eligibility)