Anyanwu v. Blanche

── Anyanwu v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFERSONKING ANYANWU, No. 24-6426 Petitioner, Agency No. A214-553-389 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 29, 2026** Before: RAWLINSON, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Jeffersonking Anyanwu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying his motion to remand to consider * 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). additional evidence. Anyanwu seeks CAT protection because he fears the Nigerian government will torture him if he is returned.1 Anyanwu’s fear of torture is based primarily on Anyanwu’s father’s allegations that the Nigerian government persecuted and tortured him on several occasions because of his political activism and a book that he wrote exposing corruption in the Nigerian government. According to Anyanwu’s father, Nigerian police and military burned his house down in response to a meeting about the contents of the book. Anyanwu and his father testified that Anyanwu’s uncle was in the home and killed in the fire. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility determinations and the denial of a claim for CAT protection for substantial evidence. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021). We review the denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, under the totality of the circumstances, Anyanwu and his father did not testify credibly. See Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). First, the BIA 1 Anyanwu is only eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT. His prior conviction makes him ineligible for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or withholding of removal under the CAT. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1162 n.7 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). 2 24-6426 permissibly considered Anyanwu’s role in a money laundering conspiracy that used false pretenses to obtain money from victims as a “relevant factor” bearing on his credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(C); cf. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). Next, the BIA relied on three inconsistencies that are supported by the record: (1) Anyanwu and his father testified that the uncle was visiting for a social visit or the book launch, but Anyanwu’s father’s written declaration said the uncle was visiting due to his “ill health,” (2) Anyanwu’s father testified that his laptop was destroyed in the fire, but his written declaration stated that the authorities took the laptop, and (3) testimony that Anyanwu’s uncle died at Anyanwu’s father’s house, which is not the address listed on the death certificate. Last, the BIA concluded that two