Anne Mwagiru v. Loretta E. Lynch , 672 F. App'x 741 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNE WANGARI MWAGIRU, No. 14-71487
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-754-599
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Anne Wangari Mwagiru, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mwagiru
failed to demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse her
untimely-filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208(a)(4), (5). Thus, we deny
the petition for review as to Mwagiru’s asylum claim, including her claim to a
humanitarian grant of asylum.
As to Mwagiru’s withholding of removal claim, the record does not compel
the conclusion that a protected ground was one central reason for the past harm
Mwagiru suffered in Kenya. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th
Cir. 2009) (to reverse the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent
‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s conclusion that Mwagiru failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution because she did not demonstrate it would be
unreasonable for her to relocate within Kenya. See Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d
1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005) (fear of future persecution undermined by prior
successful internal relocation). Thus, we deny her petition for review as to
2 14-71487
withholding of removal.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Mwagiru failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Kenyan government. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71487