Ismaheel Shoboyede v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 23-1912
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1912 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1912

ISMAHEEL OLUWASEUN SHOBOYEDE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 18, 2024 Decided: July 31, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Melvin L. Wright, YAZDANI LAW, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert Michael Stalzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1912 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Ismaheel Oluwaseun Shoboyede, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Shoboyede’s appeal

from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision finding him removable * and ordering him

removed from the United States. Shoboyede first asserts that his due process rights were

violated because the IJ admitted a consular investigation report finding his Nigerian

divorce decree fraudulent without affording him sufficient time to examine it. To establish

a due process violation during removal proceedings, an alien must show: (1) “that a defect

in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that the defect prejudiced the

outcome of the case.” Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). After

thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that Shoboyede has not made either

showing. Next, we find that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding of

removability as charged. Munyakazi v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 291, 298 (4th Cir. 2016); Xing

Yang Yang v. Holder, 770 F.3d 294, 302-03 (4th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Shoboyede (B.I.A. Aug. 4,

2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

* The agency found Shoboyede removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) because: (1) at the time of entry or adjustment of status, he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) as a noncitizen who had, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, sought to procure or procured a visa, other documentation, admission into the United States, or other benefit provided under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and (2) at the time of entry or adjustment of status, he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because he was not in possession of a valid immigration or entry document.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1912 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/31/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED