Samuel Mburu v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A078-502-305. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999971908]. [15-2483]

Appeal: 15-2483

Doc: 21

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2483

SAMUEL NDUNGU MBURU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

October 27, 2016

Decided:

November 21, 2016

Before TRAXLER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Linda
S.
Wernery,
Assistant
Director,
William
C.
Minick,
Trial
Attorney,
Office
of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2483

Doc: 21

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Samuel

Ndungu

Mburu,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Kenya,

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

(Board)

dismissing

his

appeal

from

the

immigration

judge’s decision finding him inadmissible and thus ineligible
for adjustment of status.

Mburu “bears the burden of proving

that he clearly and beyond doubt is not inadmissible” under the
false

claim

bar

of

8

U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)

(2012).

Dakura v. Holder, 772 F.3d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration
and internal quotation marks omitted).

Based on our review of

the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Mburu failed to credibly establish that he
is not inadmissible for falsely representing himself to be a
citizen of the United States.

We therefore deny the petition

for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
(B.I.A. Oct. 26, 2015).

In re Mburu

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2