Eunah Kingori v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Eunah Kingori v. Eric Holder, Jr.

447 F. App'x 834

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 2011

Docket09-71227

StatusUnpublished

This text of 447 F. App'x 834 (Eunah Kingori v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eunah Kingori v. Eric Holder, Jr., 447 F. App'x 834 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eunah Mumbi Kingori, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kingo-ri’s claim that she is a member of a social group of “persons who were persecuted by the Mungiki” because Kingori did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).

The record does not compel the conclusion that Kingori suffered problems on account of her actual or imputed political opinion. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747 (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized the petitioner for economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground); Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.

Because Kingori did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, Kingori failed to challenge the denial of her CAT claim in her opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Accordingly, her CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Eunah Mumbi Kingori, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kingo-ri’s claim that she is a member of a social group of “persons who were persecuted by the Mungiki” because Kingori did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).

The record does not compel the conclusion that Kingori suffered problems on account of her actual or imputed political opinion. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747 (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized the petitioner for economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground); Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.

Because Kingori did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, Kingori failed to challenge the denial of her CAT claim in her opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Accordingly, her CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 F. App'x 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eunah-kingori-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack