Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Temitope Sekinat Majekaodunmi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found Majekaodunmi removable for a crime involving moral turpitude based on her conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The IJ denied withholding of removal after determining that Majekaodunmi failed to meet her burden of proof under the REAL ID Act because she did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence or a reasonable explanation for its absence. The IJ also found her ineligible for withholding of removal because her conviction constituted a particularly serious crime. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, and Majekaodunmi appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Callahan and Lee and District Judge Ezra sitting by designation, considered the petition without oral argument. The court's jurisdiction was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), which generally allows review of final removal orders but restricts review for noncitizens who have committed certain crimes to constitutional and legal challenges under §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). The court applied the substantial evidence standard to factual findings and reviewed legal questions de novo. The panel addressed four main issues: jurisdiction over the withholding of removal claim, the legal standard for corroborating evidence, the particularly serious crime determination, and the denial of CAT protection. This is an unpublished memorandum disposition not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review whether the IJ applied the correct legal standard in determining that Majekaodunmi failed to meet her burden of proof for withholding of removal, but lacked jurisdiction to review the factual determination that her explanation for failing to provide corroborating evidence was unreasonable. The court affirmed that the IJ applied the correct legal standard under the REAL ID Act, which permits requiring independent corroborating evidence beyond an applicant's testimony. The IJ explicitly requested corroborating evidence and offered additional time to obtain it, which Majekaodunmi's counsel declined. The BIA therefore did not err in affirming the denial of withholding of removal on this basis.
The court also upheld the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's determination that Majekaodunmi's conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud constituted a particularly serious crime, rendering her statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). The IJ conducted a case-specific analysis, noting that the offense required targeting innocent victims and involved fraudulently obtaining money from unemployment agencies using personal identifying information of real people. The BIA considered the sentence length and nature of the conviction but gave more weight to the harm caused to innocent people, concluding those facts supported a finding of dangerousness. The court noted that a sentence of less than five years and a property-based crime do not preclude a particularly serious crime finding. Finally, the court found substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief, as the IJ considered Majekaodunmi's claims of risk as a woman and Christian in Nigeria, including country conditions evidence of violence against women and Boko Haram terrorism, but concluded she did not establish a particularized risk of torture with government acquiescence.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review legal questions in withholding of removal cases involving criminal convictions, but not factual challenges to corroboration determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).
- The REAL ID Act permits IJs to require independent corroborating evidence beyond credible testimony for withholding of removal applications, and the IJ must provide notice and an opportunity to obtain such evidence.
- A conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud can constitute a particularly serious crime barring withholding of removal even with a sentence under five years, based on a case-specific analysis of harm to victims and dangerousness.
- Property crimes are not categorically excluded from being considered particularly serious crimes under immigration law.
- To prevail on CAT relief, an applicant must show a particularized risk of torture by or with the acquiescence of government officials; generalized country conditions evidence is insufficient without a specific connection to the applicant.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the jurisdictional limits on judicial review of immigration cases involving criminal convictions, clarifying the distinction between reviewable legal questions and non-reviewable factual determinations in corroboration analyses. The court's affirmation of the particularly serious crime finding for a wire fraud conspiracy conviction with a ten-month sentence demonstrates that the nature of the offense and harm to victims can outweigh sentence length in the dangerousness analysis. The ruling also confirms that property crimes can qualify as particularly serious crimes, expanding the scope of convictions that can bar withholding of removal. For CAT claims, the decision emphasizes the requirement for particularized risk evidence rather than reliance on general country conditions.