Martin Udodiri Nwogu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN UDODIRI NWOGU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71262
Agency No. A072-940-388
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges
Martin Udodiri Nwogu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* 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).
FILED
MAR 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71262
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Nwogu has waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that he
failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091
n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening
brief).
Nwogu fears harm in Nigeria based on his family membership and imputed
political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Nwogu failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in
Nigeria. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s
claims “too speculative to be credited as a basis for fear of future persecution”).
Thus, Nwogu’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Nwogu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reject Nwogu’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence as to
his CAT claim. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(agency need not “write an exegesis on every contention” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Nwogu does not otherwise challenge the agency’s
denial of his CAT claim. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091 n. 3. Thus, Nwogu’s CAT

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71262
claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --