Muriithi v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Eighth Circuit

Muriithi v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

22 F. App'x 679

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 2001

Docket01-1068

StatusUnpublished

This text of 22 F. App'x 679 (Muriithi v. Immigration & Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Muriithi v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 22 F. App'x 679 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Antony Muriithi, a Kenyan citizen, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable and ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the legislation implementing Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture Convention). Mu-riithi argues that the lack of counsel or access to a law library during the immigration proceedings denied him due process, his conviction for domestic battery — a ground for removal — was unconstitutional, and he met his burden of proving that it is more likely than not he will be subjected to torture if returned to Kenya.

We cannot consider Muriithi’s first argument because he did not present it to the BIA, see Valadez-Salas v. INS, 721 F.2d 251, 252 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam), but we note there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a deportation hearing, see United States v. Torres-Sanchez, 68 F.3d 227, 230 (8th Cir.1995).

We need not consider Muriithi’s claim that his domestic-battery conviction was unconstitutional, because he is also deport-able for failing to comply with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status — a finding he did not appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(l)(C)(i). Finally, substantial evidence supports the determination that Mu-riithi failed to show he more likely than *680 not would be tortured upon his return to Kenya. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); cf. INS v. Elias-Zacharias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (BIA’s denial of relief will be upheld unless alien demonstrates that evidence not only supports contrary conclusion but compels it, such that reasonable factfinder would have to conclude alien established eligibility for relief).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

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

PER CURIAM.

Antony Muriithi, a Kenyan citizen, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable and ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the legislation implementing Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture Convention). Mu-riithi argues that the lack of counsel or access to a law library during the immigration proceedings denied him due process, his conviction for domestic battery — a ground for removal — was unconstitutional, and he met his burden of proving that it is more likely than not he will be subjected to torture if returned to Kenya.

We cannot consider Muriithi’s first argument because he did not present it to the BIA, see Valadez-Salas v. INS, 721 F.2d 251, 252 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam), but we note there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a deportation hearing, see United States v. Torres-Sanchez, 68 F.3d 227, 230 (8th Cir.1995).

We need not consider Muriithi’s claim that his domestic-battery conviction was unconstitutional, because he is also deport-able for failing to comply with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status — a finding he did not appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(l)(C)(i). Finally, substantial evidence supports the determination that Mu-riithi failed to show he more likely than *680 not would be tortured upon his return to Kenya. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); cf. INS v. Elias-Zacharias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (BIA’s denial of relief will be upheld unless alien demonstrates that evidence not only supports contrary conclusion but compels it, such that reasonable factfinder would have to conclude alien established eligibility for relief).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. App'x 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muriithi-v-immigration-naturalization-service-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack