Dorcas Kariuki v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A097-972-137. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999700116]. [15-1297]

Appeal: 15-1297

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1297

DORCAS WANGARI KARIUKI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

October 27, 2015

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

November 17, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Liam Ge, LIAMSLAW IMMIGRATION PRACTICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Surell
Brady,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1297

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Dorcas

Wangari

Kariuki,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Kenya,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(Board)

dismissing

her

appeal

from

the

immigration

judge’s denial of her requests for withholding of removal and
protection

under

thoroughly

reviewed

Kariuki’s
conclude

merits
that

the

the

Convention

the

record,

hearing
record

and

Torture. *

Against
including

all

the

supporting

evidence

does

not

We

have

transcript
evidence.

compel

a

of
We

ruling

contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8
U.S.C.

§

1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012),

supports the Board’s decision.
Accordingly,

we

deny

legal
before

that

substantial

evidence

See Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359.

the

reasons stated by the Board.
2015).

and

petition

for

review

for

the

In re: Kariuki (B.I.A. Feb. 23,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

*

Kariuki does not challenge the denial of her asylum claim
as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to review
this finding.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).

2