Anyanwu v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 1, 2026
• Docket: 24-6426
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFERSONKING ANYANWU, No. 24-6426

Petitioner, Agency No. A214-553-389 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 29, 2026**

Before: RAWLINSON, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Jeffersonking Anyanwu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an

immigration judge’s denial of his application for deferral of removal under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying his motion to remand to consider

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). additional evidence. Anyanwu seeks CAT protection because he fears the Nigerian

government will torture him if he is returned.1 Anyanwu’s fear of torture is based

primarily on Anyanwu’s father’s allegations that the Nigerian government

persecuted and tortured him on several occasions because of his political activism

and a book that he wrote exposing corruption in the Nigerian government. According

to Anyanwu’s father, Nigerian police and military burned his house down in

response to a meeting about the contents of the book. Anyanwu and his father

testified that Anyanwu’s uncle was in the home and killed in the fire.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility

determinations and the denial of a claim for CAT protection for substantial evidence.

Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017); Lalayan v. Garland, 4

F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021). We review the denial of a motion to remand for abuse

of discretion. Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the

petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, under the

totality of the circumstances, Anyanwu and his father did not testify credibly. See

Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). First, the BIA

1 Anyanwu is only eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT. His prior conviction makes him ineligible for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or withholding of removal under the CAT. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1162 n.7 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

2 24-6426 permissibly considered Anyanwu’s role in a money laundering conspiracy that used

false pretenses to obtain money from victims as a “relevant factor” bearing on his

credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(C); cf. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). Next, the BIA

relied on three inconsistencies that are supported by the record: (1) Anyanwu and

his father testified that the uncle was visiting for a social visit or the book launch,

but Anyanwu’s father’s written declaration said the uncle was visiting due to his “ill

health,” (2) Anyanwu’s father testified that his laptop was destroyed in the fire, but

his written declaration stated that the authorities took the laptop, and (3) testimony

that Anyanwu’s uncle died at Anyanwu’s father’s house, which is not the address

listed on the death certificate. Last, the BIA concluded that two aspects of

Anyanwu’s testimony were inherently implausible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(C).

Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not compel the conclusion

that Anyanwu and his father testified credibly. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083,

1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To reverse [an adverse credibility] finding we must find that

the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” (citation

modified)).

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, given the

lack of credible testimony, Anyanwu did not prove that it is more likely than not that

he will be tortured by the government if removed to Nigeria. See Mairena v. Barr,

917 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). The agency concluded that

3 24-6426 although Anyanwu’s father likely faced persecution on account of his political

activities, no one in the Nigerian government has the means or intent to torture

Anyanwu, and no record evidence suggests that the families of those involved in

political activism were systematically targeted. The record does not compel a

contrary conclusion. See, e.g., Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1049 (9th Cir.

2010).

3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Anyanwu’s motion to

remand to consider further evidence. The BIA may deny a motion to remand if the

petitioner fails to “introduce previously unavailable, material evidence.” See

Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation

modified). Here, Anyanwu fails to show that the evidence he submitted with his

motion to remand was previously unavailable because the articles and letter that he

submitted all predated his merits hearing. The evidence was thus “available and

capable of discovery” before his hearing, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion by

denying the motion to remand. See Guzman v. I.N.S., 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir.

2003) (per curiam).

The petition for review is DENIED.

4 24-6426