But his conviction for a drug crime made him excludable from the United States, and so immigration officials denied his request for adjustment of status.

He claimed he had a well-founded fear that if England would not accept him and he returned to Ghana, his life and freedom would be threatened by the regime in power there.

After that regime seized power, it had carried out a system of persecution against its political enemies, including Assibi Abudu's brother and other close friends.

It ultimately ordered the BIA to reevaluate Assibi Abudu's requests for asylum and withholding of deportation and grant him a full-blown hearing on the matters.

In the Ninth Circuit's view, the "sole issue" was whether Assibi Abudu had made out a prima facie case for reopening.

[1] First, it may determine that the applicant has not established a prima facie case to the underlying relief he seeks, such as asylum or withholding of removal.

Thus, "in a given case the BIA may determine, either as a sufficient ground for denying relief or as a necessary step toward granting relief, whether the alien has produced previously unavailable, material evidence, and, in asylum cases, whether the alien has reasonably explained his or her failure to request asylum earlier."

Moreover, in other totally judicial contexts, such as motions for new trials on the basis of newly discovered evidence, the movant bears an "especially heavy burden."