Monsur Kayode Rufai v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MONSUR KAYODE RUFAI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70847
Agency No. A029-455-965
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Monsur Kayode Rufai, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rufai’s motion to reopen for
failure to establish a prima facie case for asylum, withholding and relief under the
CAT, where Rufai did not establish that the Nigerian government would be unable
or unwilling to protect him, see Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.
2010) (an applicant for asylum and withholding of removal bears the burden of
establishing that the government would be unwilling or unable to prevent his
persecution), or that he cannot safely relocate to another region of Nigera, see
Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]o be eligible for relief
under the Convention Against Torture, [an applicant] bears the burden of proving
he would be unable to live elsewhere in the country safely.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Contrary to Rufai’s contention, the BIA elaborated its conclusions in
sufficient detail in denying his motion to reopen. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on
every contention. What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues
raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to
13-70847 2

-- 2 of 3 --

perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and
quotation marks omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rufai’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70847 3

-- 3 of 3 --