Olumide Ogunremi v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14001
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
OLUMIDE OGUNREMI,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A062-115-354
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14001 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-14001
Before NEWSOM , BRASHER , and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Olumide Ogunremi, pro se, faces removal to Nigeria after
being convicted of a serious crime. An immigration judge denied
his petition for asylum and the Board of Immigration Appeals sum-
marily dismissed his appeal. He now asks us to review the Board’s
dismissal. Because he did not raise the core issue or his arguments
before the Board, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
So we cannot review the Board here. And even if we could, sum-
mary dismissal was appropriate because Ogunremi did not apprise
the Board of the specific grounds for his appeal.
I.
Over a decade ago, Ogunremi became a lawful permanent
resident of the United States. Months after the United States
granted him this status, he participated in a hacking and identity
theft scheme. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire
fraud. As a result, his status in the United States became precarious.
The Department of Homeland Security charged Ogunremi
with inadmissibility, since he was a noncitizen convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude. But Ogunremi said he feared persecu-
tion and torture in Nigeria. So he sought asylum and related relief.
After a hearing, an immigration judge denied all his requested relief
and ordered that he be removed to Nigeria.
Ogunremi filed a notice of appeal with the Board of Immi-
gration Appeals. As his reason for the appeal, he simply said the
USCA11 Case: 22-14001 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-14001 Opinion of the Court 3
immigration judge erred and then summarized the immigration
judge’s reasoning. He said that he planned to submit a separate
written brief. He did not do so.
The Board summarily dismissed his appeal because he iden-
tified no alleged errors in the immigration judge’s decision. This
petition followed.
II.
We assess de novo whether a petitioner has exhausted his
arguments before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Amaya-
Artunduaga v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
We review the Board’s summary dismissal of an appeal for abuse
of discretion. Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 453 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th
Cir. 2006).
III.
We can review a final order of removal only if, in part, “the
alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the al-
ien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). See also Kemokai v. U.S. Att'y
Gen., 83 F.4th 886, 891 (11th Cir. 2023)(exhaustion requirement is
not jurisdictional but will be applied where raised). We have held
that “[a] petitioner has not exhausted a claim unless he has both
raised the ‘core issue’ before the [Board] and also set out any dis-
crete arguments he relies on in support of that claim.” Jeune v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). We
have suggested that a petitioner can identify the core issue and dis-
crete arguments in either his briefing or his notice of appeal. See
USCA11 Case: 22-14001 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-14001
Esponda, 453 F.3d at 1322. But merely asserting general grounds
that the immigration judge erred, without offering further argu-
ment, does not satisfy this obligation. Bayro v. Reno, 142 F.3d 1377,
1379 (11th Cir. 1998).
On the merits, summary dismissal is appropriate when a pe-
titioner merely asserts that an immigration judge erred, without
identifying the alleged errors and explaining why they should be
considered errors. See Bonne-Annee v. I.N.S., 810 F.2d 1077, 1078
(11th Cir. 1987). “Otherwise the [Board] is left to speculate whether
petitioner challenges erroneous findings of fact or law, or both.” Id.
The crux of each inquiry is essentially the same: did the pe-
titioner properly raise and explain his alleged grounds for reversal?
In this case, the answer to both questions is “no.”
Ogunremi did not file a brief before the Board, even though
he said he intended to. So we are limited to a review of his notice
of appeal. But the entirety of Ogunremi’s cleaned-up notice of ap-
peal does not identify any alleged legal or factual errors in the im-
migration judge’s decision:
I believe the Immigration Judge erred in his decision
on June 17th, 2022. He said he found my claim about
the death of my brother somewhat credible, but he
felt that due to my criminal conviction he would have
to take my evidence lightly, and regardless of what
my evidence showed, and since I was filing for relief
under the CAT (convention against torture) he made
it seem like my felony conviction does not make me
qualify.
USCA11 Case: 22-14001 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-14001 Opinion of the Court 5
Even assuming a petitioner can exhaust by filing a notice of
appeal without a supporting brief, Ogunremi did not do so here.
The notice of appeal is not exactly accurate. The immigration
judge found Ogunremi credible and denied his petition on the mer-
its, concluding that he failed to show a clear probability that he
would face torture in Nigeria. But, more to the point, after saying
the immigration judge erred, Ogunremi’s notice of appeal merely
summarizes what he believes to be the immigration judge’s rea-
soning. True, the general tenor of his summary suggests that he
disagrees with that reasoning. But he does not actually offer any
legal or factual basis for why the Board ought to reverse the immi-
gration judge. What did the immigration judge do wrong? And
why should the Board think so? The notice of appeal doesn’t say.
A pro se petitioner needn’t do much to exhaust his argu-
ments and prevent a summary dismissal. But, to review an immi-
gration judge’s decision, the Board must be given enough to fairly
comprehend a petitioner’s grounds for appeal and his arguments.
See Bayro, 142 F.3d at 1379. It didn’t have that here.
IV.
Because Ogunremi offered only general grounds for his ap-
peal, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. So we cannot
hear his petition from the Board. And even if we could, the Board
of Immigration Appeals was within its discretion when it dismissed
his case for the same reasons. So the petition for review is
DENIED.
USCA11 Case: 22-14001 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --