Gbolahan Olubowale v. Jefferson Sessions III ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1675
    GBOLAHAN OYEBANJI OLUBOWALE, a/k/a Gbolahan Oyebanji Olubawale,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
    Submitted: October 22, 2018                                  Decided: November 1, 2018
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gbolahan Oyebanji Olubowale, Petitioner Pro Se. Julia Tyler, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
    Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gbolahan Oyebanji Olubowale, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review
    of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
    immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
    and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Olubowale has waived
    review of the denial of protection under the CAT by not raising the issue in his informal
    brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 
    714 F.3d 241
    , 248-49 (4th Cir.
    2013) (noting that failing to challenge Board’s ruling or finding in opening brief waives
    issue). Olubowale has abandoned review of the adverse credibility finding, which was the
    reason his applications for asylum and withholding of removal were denied, because he
    did not exhaust this issue before the Board or raise it in his brief before this Court. See 8
    U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Ramirez v. Sessions, 
    887 F.3d 693
    , 700 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting
    court lacks jurisdiction to review issue if alien failed to raise it below). Accordingly, we
    deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1675

Filed Date: 11/1/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2018