FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOLAJIMI IBIKINLE AKINSHILO, No. 06-75348
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-493-971
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Folajimi Ibikinle Akinshilo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
DL/Research
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny
the petition for review.
We do not address Akinshilo’s challenges to findings set forth by the IJ but
not adopted by the BIA. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.
2009) (where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than
adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the
extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted).
We reject the government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction because
Akinshilo was found to be removable based upon his prior criminal conviction.
See Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1075 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction
exists where the agency has denied relief on the merits, notwithstanding
removability based upon an aggravated felony).
The record does not compel the conclusion that Akinshilo filed his asylum
application within a reasonable period of time given any changed or extraordinary
circumstances. See 8 C.F.R § 208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
DL/Research 2 06-75348
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Akinshilo did not
show that the Nigerian government was unable or unwilling to control the
members of the Ogboni cult who threatened to harm him. In light of the
documentary evidence, and Akinshilo’s testimony acknowledging that cult
practices were banned, Akinshilo cannot convincingly establish that reporting the
cult’s threats to the police would have been futile or subjected him to further harm.
See Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006); Castro-
Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to Akinshilo’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Akinshilo
cannot show a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of government
officials if returned to Nigeria, and therefore we deny the petition as to Akinshilo’s
CAT claim. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).
The government’s motion to strike exhibits attached to Akinshilo’s reply
brief is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
DL/Research 3 06-75348