Ajibola Kikiowo v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 24-1573
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1573 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1573

AJIBOLA KELVIN KIKIOWO,

Petitioner,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: April 29, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025

Before WYNN, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ajibola Kelvin Kikiowo, Petitioner Pro Se. Brooke Marie Maurer, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1573 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Ajibola Kelvin Kikiowo, 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 determining him to have committed a particularly serious

crime that renders him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and denying the

relief of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

We have reviewed the record and the agency’s conclusion that Kikiowo’s

conviction for Virgina sexual battery constituted a particularly serious crime and find no

abuse of discretion. We therefore uphold the agency’s determination. See Gao v. Holder,

595 F.3d 549, 555-58 (4th Cir. 2010).

Next, we have considered Kikiowo’s challenges to the denial of deferral of removal

under the CAT. To be granted that relief, Kikiowo must demonstrate that it is more likely

than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Nigeria. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2024).

Because this Court reviews the denial of relief under the CAT for substantial evidence,

“[t]he agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would

be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Nasrallah v. Bar, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020)

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Relevant legal determinations are subject to de novo

review. Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012). Upon review, we find that

the record evidence does not compel reversal of the agency’s denial of relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Kikiowo (B.I.A. May 24, 2024).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1573 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED