Ismaheel Oluwaseun Shoboyede v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --