Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03825/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03825-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Diana Mwangi
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3825

___________

Diana Mwangi, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of *

the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 21, 2004

Filed: November 10, 2004 

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Diana Mwangi, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeal's (BIA) order affirming without opinion an immigration

judge's (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and

protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). We find the decision

supported by substantial evidence, thus we deny the petition for review.

Appellate Case: 02-3825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832526 
1

Ms. Mwangi is not a member of any political group and has never publicly

spoken out against the government of Kenya. Although she once attended an election

meeting of the FORD-Asili group, she never donated money, paid dues or received

a membership card.

-2-

I

Ms. Mwangi entered the United States in March 1997 on a student visa to

attend North Hennepin College in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ms. Mwangi, however,

never attended school in the United States and acknowledged that she never had any

intention of doing so. Ms. Mwangi now claims she entered the United States to seek

asylum. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) commenced removal

proceedings against Ms. Mwangi, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), charging her

with failing to maintain or comply with conditions of her non-immigrant status. She

conceded her removability, but sought asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding

of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection under Article III of CAT,

Dec. 10, 1984, art. 3, S. Treaty Doc. No 100-20, 20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, 113. Ms.

Mwangi claimed she would suffer persecution upon her return to Kenya because of

her participation in a drama club that performed a play for a Kenyan opposition

group.

At the asylum hearing, Ms. Mwangi was the sole witness to testify on her

behalf. According to Ms. Mwangi, a couple years after graduating from high school

she enrolled in the Paip Computer Institute, a college in Nairobi where she joined the

drama club, and later served as its chairperson. Ms. Mwangi testified that, in

February 1995, her drama group performed a play entitled "Things Fall Apart" before

the FORD-Asili group, a Kenyan opposition party.1

 She stated that, at the conclusion

of the performance, government authorities broke up the meeting as an unlicensed

gathering. Upon returning to the school the following day, Ms. Mwangi testified she

Appellate Case: 02-3825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832526 
2

She testified that her father received three additional notices for her to appear

at the High Court during that time, but that he was able to bribe local officials so that

she would not have to appear. 

-3-

learned the government had arrested her drama teacher, school principal and a few

of her fellow students for participation in the play.

According to Ms. Mwangi, the entire student population of more than 4,000,

along with members of the public and students of other schools, protested the arrests

in the streets of Nairobi. When the police arrived to quell the protests, the protesters

including Ms. Mwangi, began throwing stones. At some point, as the protestors

approached the parliament building, the police began firing upon the crowd, and Ms.

Mwangi fled and returned to her home.

Ms. Mwangi testified she did not return to school and, in fact, the government

closed the schools involved in the protests for two months after the incident. Ms.

Mwangi also testified that, shortly after the demonstration, she received a letter from

the High Court of Kenya requesting that she appear to testify about the incident. Ms.

Mwangi testified she feared she would be arrested, so instead of appearing she went

to live with her grandmother in Muranga, a town in Kenya approximately twelve

hours from Nairobi. She reported no additional contact with the government during

her two year stay in Muranga.2

 

During her stay in Muranga, Ms. Mwangi twice traveled to Nairobi where she

obtained a passport and a student visa. She filled out the visa application at the

United States embassy in Nairobi and did not mention any fear of remaining in Kenya

during an interview conducted at the time. On March 4, 1997, Ms. Mwangi departed

Nairobi, Kenya, for the United States. Her passport contains an exit stamp indicating

she was granted permission by local authorities to depart.

Appellate Case: 02-3825 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832526 
-4-

During the asylum hearing, the IJ expressed concern that none of the country

and human rights reports concerning conditions in Kenya reported a large

demonstration in which thousands of students protested and as a result major

universities had been closed. The IJ stated that "the existence of such widespread

student demonstrations, or even strikes or shutdowns at schools should be something

that is of public record somewhere." The IJ also questioned Ms. Mwangi's inability

to produce the letters demanding her appearance at the High Court, especially in light

of the fact she testified she intended to apply for asylum upon arriving in the United

States.

To address the IJ's concerns, the IJ provided Ms. Mwangi with five additional

months to produce objective documentary evidence of her claims. Despite the fivemonth extension, Ms. Mwangi failed to submit any additional material to corroborate

her claims. The INS did, however, submit additional evidence relevant to Ms.

Mwangi's claims. The INS produced various governmental and non-governmental

reports showing student demonstrations in 1997 and 1999 while Ms. Mwangi was in

the United States, but these reports contained no mention of student protests or school

closings in 1995 as claimed by Ms. Mwangi.

With Ms. Mwangi's failure to produce additional objective documentary

evidence of her claims, the IJ denied her request for asylum. The IJ found Ms.

Mwangi had not been persecuted by the government of Kenya in the past and she has

no well-founded fear of persecution in the future. Because Ms. Mwangi failed to

establish eligibility for asylum, the IJ denied her request for withholding of removal,

which has a higher burden of proof. The IJ further denied Ms. Mwangi's request for

relief under CAT, finding she failed to establish she would be tortured by the Kenyan

government. The IJ granted Ms. Mwangi the privilege of voluntarily departing the

United States. Ms. Mwangi thereafter sought review before the BIA. The BIA

affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion. This appeal follows. 

Appellate Case: 02-3825 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832526 
-5-

II

Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, the IJ's decision is the final agency

decision for purposes of review. Wondmneh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1096, 1097 (8th

Cir. 2004). We review the IJ's findings of fact, including her decision that the

applicant has failed to establish eligibility for asylum, eligibility for withholding of

removal or eligibility for protection under CAT using a standard equivalent to the

substantial-evidence standard. Zakirov v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 541, 545 (8th Cir.

2004). We reverse the IJ's decision only if we find no reasonable fact-finder could

arrive at the conclusions reached by the IJ. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-

84 (1992); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

A. Asylum

The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the Attorney General discretion

to award asylum to a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). The Act defines a refugee as an

individual who is unwilling or unable to return to her country of nationality because

of past persecution or because of a well-founded fear of future persecution on account

of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political

opinion. Id. at § 1101(a)(42)(A). Ms. Mwangi claims she fled Kenya because of fear

of persecution for her role in a drama club performance of an anti-government play.

To establish this fear as well-founded, Ms. Mwangi bears the burden of showing her

fear is both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). Subjectively, Ms. Mwangi must demonstrate

with credible evidence that she genuinely fears persecution; objectively, she must

demonstrate through credible, direct, and specific evidence that a reasonable person

in her position would fear persecution. Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir.

1997). 

Appellate Case: 02-3825 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832526 
-6-

The first inquiry involves whether there existed substantial credible evidence

for the IJ to conclude Ms. Mwangi had no genuine subjective fear of persecution.

The evidence shows Ms. Mwangi lived peacefully in Kenya for two years following

the protest. She returned to Nairobi on at least three occasions without incident to

obtain a government issued passport, a student visa, and to fly to America. While at

the airport in Nairobi, the Kenyan government issued her a visa to leave the country.

During her interview at the United States Embassy, she failed to mention her

participation in the student protests and instead applied for a student visa. Although

she now claims she never intended on going to school and wished to apply for

asylum, she suspiciously failed to bring evidence such as the notice to appear to the

United States with her. Finally, neither Ms. Mwangi nor the government could

produce any objective documentary evidence of a student protest in 1995 involving

thousands of students where a riot erupted and the police fired upon the crowd after

which three major Kenyan schools were closed for two months. Thus, in light of the

evidence or lack thereof discussed above, we believe it reasonable for the IJ to

conclude Ms. Mwangi's subjective fear was minimal, if not non-existent.

Even if there were substantial evidence to conclude Ms. Mwangi suffered from

a genuine subjective fear, she must still show her alleged subjective fear of

persecution was objectively reasonable. Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 709 (8th

Cir. 2003). "To show fear of persecution is objectively reasonable, an alien must

present 'credible, direct, and specific evidence of facts that show a reasonable person

in the alien's position would fear persecution if returned to the alien's native country.'"

Id. (quoting Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1390 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).

In the additional time granted to Ms. Mwangi by the IJ, she failed to produce any

credible, direct and specific evidence of the student demonstration. The IJ’s decision

is supported by Ms. Mwangi’s failure to produce evidence of the student

demonstration. The IJ's decision is further supported by evidence she lived in Kenya

for at least two years following the alleged protest without incident and evidence the

Kenyan government freely issued her travel documents. Although Ms. Mwangi can

Appellate Case: 02-3825 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832526 
-7-

point to the generally poor human rights record of the Kenyan government, she

cannot produce any particularized evidence to support her claimed fear of

persecution. Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating applicants for

asylum must demonstrate a fear of particularized persecution). Thus, after a careful

review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the IJ’s conclusion Ms.

Mwangi failed to prove she had a well-founded fear of suffering persecution at the

hands of the Kenyan government. 

B. Withholding of Removal and CAT

To establish eligibility for withholding of removal an alien bears the burden of

demonstrating that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country designated

for removal on account of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Act. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3). The requisite burden of proof to establish eligibility for asylum is

lower than that required for withholding of removal. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407,

429 (1984) (explaining that a withholding of removal applicant must show a "clear

probability" of persecution). Therefore, Ms. Mwangi's failure to satisfy the lesser

standard applicable to her asylum claim necessarily results in failure to demonstrate

her eligibility for withholding of removal. See Regalado v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 787

(8th Cir. 2002). For similar reasons, we find substantial evidence to support the IJ's

decision to deny Ms. Mwangi the protections of CAT. 

III

For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review.

____________________________________

Appellate Case: 02-3825 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832526