Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14603/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14603-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nancy Wanjiru Igamba
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14603

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A087-501-681

NANCY WANJIRU IGAMBA, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(January 10, 2017)

Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 1 of 8
2

Nancy Wanjiru Igamba, a native and citizen of Kenya, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order adopting and affirming the 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. After review, we 

dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

A. Asylum Application

In May 2008, Igamba entered the United States on a B2 visitor’s visa, with 

authorization to remain until November 2008. In May 2009, Igamba filed an 

application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (“INA”) and for relief under CAT. 

Igamba claimed she had suffered past persecution and feared future 

persecution by the Mungiki, a quasi-religious criminal organization in Kenya that 

is predominantly made up of members of the Kikuyu ethnic group. Igamba alleged 

that the Mungiki had targeted her for persecution, including rape, genital 

mutilation, and murder, because (1) she was a Christian woman of Kikuyu 

ethnicity who was uncircumcised, unmarried, and independent, and (2) she had 

formerly worked for the Kenyan police force and was wrongly believed by the 

Mungiki to have been involved in the Kenyan police’s extrajudicial murder of a 

Mungiki leader, George Waweru. 

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 2 of 8
3

According to Igamba’s affidavit, in February 2008, six months after Waweru 

was killed in August 2007, three unknown men approached her at a bus stop. One 

of the men identified himself as Mungiki, accused her of being involved in 

Waweru’s killing, and threatened to circumcise her. The man warned Igamba that 

if she reported the encounter, the Mungiki would kidnap, circumcise, rape, and kill 

her. Igamba did not report the incident. A month later, an unknown man forced 

his way into Igamba’s home and attempted to rape her. When a neighbor knocked 

on her door, Igamba’s assailant fled. Igamba moved into her sister’s home in a 

different neighborhood to avoid further attacks. 

Igamba also submitted an affidavit from Dr. Frank Holmquist, a professor of 

politics with specialization in Kenyan studies. According to Dr. Holmquist: (1) the 

Mungiki engaged in extortion, intimidation, mutilations, kidnappings, and 

execution style killings, including brutal revenge killings; (2) the Kenyan 

government and police had been in a bloody battle with the Mungiki for years; (3) 

the Mungiki’s favored targets included the police, individuals they believe have 

collaborated with the police against them, and uncircumcised or otherwise 

“disobedient” Kikuyu women; (4) the Kenyan government was widely believed to 

have carried out unauthorized killings of suspected Mungiki members; (5) a human 

rights group suspected George Waweru was kidnapped and killed by the police; (6) 

the circumstances of Igamba’s work for the police and her proximity to Waweru 

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 3 of 8
4

(who was her friend and neighbor) made it reasonable for the Mungiki to believe 

she was a police spy who had facilitated Waweru’s murder; (7) once the Mungiki 

label an individual a betrayer, members will target the individual for torture and 

death; and (8) because the Mungiki could carry out their threats anywhere in 

Kenya, Igamba could not safely live in Kenya 

B. Immigration Proceedings

In her petition to this Court, Igamba contends only that she demonstrated 

that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her membership in 

a particular social group.

Igamba does not challenge the BIA’s ruling that she waived her CAT claim 

and her persecution claims based on her race and religion. These claims are 

therefore deemed abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 

1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). In addition, Igamba’s petition does not contain any 

meaningful argument that she demonstrated past persecution based on her 

membership in a particular social group. Thus, she has abandoned this claim as 

well. See Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530-31 (11th Cir. 2013) 

(explaining that to adequately raise an issue, the party must specifically and clearly 

identify the issue in the opening brief and devote a discrete portion of his argument 

to that issue). Accordingly, we outline the IJ’s and the BIA’s findings only as they 

pertain to Igamba’s future persecution claim based on her membership in a 

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 4 of 8
5

particular social group. Both the IJ and the BIA considered her social group to be 

perceived collaborators with the Kenyan police. Igamba does not dispute this 

characterization.

After a hearing at which Igamba testified, the IJ denied Igamba all requested 

relief. The IJ found Igamba’s documentary and testimonial evidence was credible, 

but concluded, inter alia, that she had not proven that she had a well-founded fear 

of persecution on account of a protected ground. Relevant to this appeal, the IJ 

concluded that Igamba’s proposed social group of “people perceived as 

collaborators with the Kenyan police,” lacked the required “socially visibility” 

because it “was not shown to be a recognizable segment or group in Kenyan 

society.” 

As to the issue of well-founded fear, the IJ discounted Dr. Holmquist’s 

opinion that Igamba could not live safely in Kenya. The IJ explained that Dr. 

Holmquist’s unsupported conclusion on this point touched on the ultimate issue in 

the case. The IJ further pointed out that Igamba did not experience any problems 

in Kenya once she relocated to a different neighborhood and that five years had 

passed since Igamba’s two encounters with the Mungiki had occurred. Thus, the IJ 

found that Igamba did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

The IJ further concluded that, because Igamba could not satisfy the lower burden 

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 5 of 8
6

of proof for asylum, she had not met the higher burden for withholding of removal 

under the INA. 

On appeal to the BIA, Igamba’s brief argued that: (1) she belonged to a 

particular social group; and (2) her fear of future persecution was well-founded. 

As to the social group issue, Igamba contended that her particular social group was 

“perceived as a group by society,” and that standing up to the Mungiki was an 

immutable characteristic, as once a Kenyan did this, he or she could not take it 

back. As to the well-founded fear issue, Igamba argued that the IJ had erred in 

disregarding information in Dr. Holmquist’s affidavit about the violent nature of 

the Mungiki and that the IJ had failed to explain how a reasonable person in 

Igamba’s situation would not be afraid to return to Kenya given this evidence. 

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. As to asylum, the BIA 

concluded, inter alia, that Igamba could not establish a well-founded fear of future 

persecution based on a protected category. The BIA determined, among other 

things, that Igamba’s identified group—collaborators with the Kenyan police—

lacked “the particularity and social distinction (formerly referred to as social 

visibility)” necessary to constitute a particular social group. The BIA concluded 

that Igamba’s evidence “of country conditions that members of the general 

population in Kenya [who] oppose the criminal organization the Mungiki [are]

subject to acts of criminality and retribution” did not establish that her proposed 

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 6 of 8
7

social group met the required criteria. The BIA concluded that the IJ had properly 

discounted Dr. Holmquist’s affidavit, as Dr. Holmquist did not support his 

conclusion that Igamba would likely face torture and persecution at the hands of 

the Mungiki if she was forced to return to Kenya, and he was not made available 

for testimony or cross-examination in support of his opinion. Like the IJ before it, 

the BIA determined that, because Igamba could not establish her asylum eligibility, 

she also failed to meet the higher burden of proof necessary to establish eligibility 

for withholding of removal.1

 

II. DISCUSSION

In her counseled petition for review, Igamba argues that: (1) the IJ ignored 

the details of her credited testimony, which established that the Mungiki had 

targeted her because they believe she was involved in the Kenyan police’s killing 

of Waweru and “[t]his at least makes the case for withholding of removal and 

relief under the Convention against Torture”; and (2) Dr. Holmquist’s affidavit 

supporting her claim was “detailed and plausible,” and the IJ “was not entitled to 

discount this credible evidence.” 

For Igamba to obtain a reversal on either an asylum or withholding of 

removal claim, she must show that the IJ and the BIA erred in concluding that 

“people perceived as collaborators with the Kenyan police” are not a cognizable 

 

1

Where, as here, the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the decisions of 

both the BIA and the IJ. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 7 of 8
8

particular social group under the INA. See INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). Igamba’s appeal brief to this Court, 

however, makes no argument about whether her proposed group qualifies as a 

particular social group. Therefore, she has abandoned any challenge to this ground 

for denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. See

Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2. Further, we need not address whether Igamba’s 

evidence established that she had an objectively reasonable fear of the Mungiki or 

any other issues Igamba’s petition for review raises. Because Igamba does not 

dispute the determination of the IJ and the BIA that she failed to show she was a 

member of a particular social group within the meaning of the INA, we deny her 

petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 15-14603 Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Page: 8 of 8