Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02483/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02483-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Samuel Ndungu Mburu
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 2
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. In re Mburu

(B.I.A. Oct. 26, 2015). 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

Appeal: 15-2483 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 2