X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The petitioner, Annie Nduta Thuri, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision ordering that Thuri be removed. Police officers in Thuri’s native country of Kenya raped and physically abused Thuri after her father reported the officers to local authorities for hijacking a truckload of goods that he was driving. Thuri fled Kenya. In February 2000, the government instituted removal proceedings against Thuri. In September 2000, the IJ denied Thuri’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal and her request for relief under the Convention Against Torture. While the IJ found Thuri’s testimony of the events surrounding her rape to be credible, he concluded that she should not be granted asylum or withholding of removal because she had not established that the officers persecuted her “on account of” any political opinion held by her or imputed to her. In the IJ’s view, Thuri’s rapists were criminals motivated by personal reasons unrelated to any political belief held by Thuri or her father. Further, the IJ rejected Thuri’s claim under the Convention Against Torture because she had not shown that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she returns to Kenya. The IJ ordered that Thuri be removed to Kenya. In April 2003, a single judge of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed without opinion. Thuri filed a petition for review of the BIA’s final order under INA 242(a). HOLDING:Denied. Although one might disagree with the IJ’s determination that the officers were motivated by purely personal reasons, the court is not persuaded that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The standard for withholding of removal under 241 of the INA is similar to the standard for refugee status: The alien must demonstrate that she would be persecuted in the country of removal “because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Since Thuri has not established her eligibility for consideration for asylum, she necessarily cannot succeed on her application for withholding of removal. Finally, the court observes that Thuri waived her claim for relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture by failing to raise it in her petition for review. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.