Adekunle Munis v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60524 Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES Mandate pull date is 10/02/2017 [16-60524]

Case: 16-60524

Document: 00514113012

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60524
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 11, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

ADEKUNLE MUNIS MUNIS,
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 968 408
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Adekunle Munis Munis, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications
for asylum and withholding of removal. Munis contends that based on his
credible testimony, as well as documentary evidence, he sufficiently
established that he will be persecuted if returned to Nigeria on account of his
imputed political opinion.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 16-60524

Document: 00514113012

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

No. 16-60524
This court generally reviews only the BIA’s decision except to the extent
that the immigration judge’s ruling influences the BIA.

Wang v. Holder,

569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA approved of, and relied upon,
the immigration judge’s findings; thus, we may review the decisions of the
immigration judge and BIA. See id.
The immigration judge concluded that even if all of Munis’s assertions
were taken as true, i.e., Munis’s father was poisoned due to his whistleblowing
activities and the same individuals were looking to harm Munis in Nigeria,
Munis’s claims were unavailing because he failed to show a state actor was
involved and that a nexus existed to any statutorily protected ground. See
Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009); Tesfamichael v. Gonzales,
469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006). The immigration judge reasoned that the
individuals who allegedly poisoned Munis’s father were private individuals
with a financial motive. We have held that economic extortion and actions
based on a criminal motive or a desire for money do not rise to the level of
persecution because of a protected ground. See Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885,
890 (5th Cir. 2004).

Munis does not challenge these findings by the

immigration judge. Accordingly, he has abandoned any argument challenging
the decision denying him relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833
(5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, Munis’s speculative assertions were insufficient to
satisfy his burden for asylum. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 445
(5th Cir. 2001). Because Munis failed to meet the bar for asylum, he does not
meet the standard for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Aschcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
This court will not consider Munis’s claim for relief under the Convention
Against Torture because he failed to exhaust the claim before the BIA. See
Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the claim

2

Case: 16-60524

Document: 00514113012

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

No. 16-60524
is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319
(5th Cir. 2009).
DENIED

IN

PART;

DISMISSED

JURISDICTION.

3

IN

PART

FOR

LACK

OF