Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03088/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Dorcas Tabitha Njenga
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3088

___________

Dorcas Tabitha Njenga, * 

* 

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of a Final

v. * Decision of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * 

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2007

Filed: March 30, 2007

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dorcas Tabitha Njenga, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitioned for asylum.

The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) affirmed. Njenga now seeks review. We deny the petition.

Njenga arrived in the United States on a temporary visa that authorized her to

stay until September 2001. She overstayed her visa and, in 2002, Njenga applied for

asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT).

Appellate Case: 05-3088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293775
-2-

Njenga, now age 26, submitted four grounds in support of her petition. She

feared, if returned to Kenya, that: (1) her uncles and aunts would pressure her

immediate family to subject her to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM); (2) she would

be unable to receive a nursing education in Kenya; (3) she would become a victim of

the country's high crime rate and (4) her brothers would be unable to protect her from

the country's crime and her extended family's desire to subject her to FGM. Njenga

was the sole witness in her hearing. The IJ found that her fears were not objectively

reasonable and denied Njenga's petition. The BIA affirmed. Njenga appeals only the

denial of asylum.

Njenga is eligible for asylum if she establishes that she possesses "a

well-founded fear of persecution [based upon] race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

Denial of asylum is reviewed for abuse of discretion; underlying factual

findings are reviewed for substantial support by the record. Manivong v. Dist. Dir.,

United States Dep't of Justice I.N.S., 164 F.3d 432, 433 (8th Cir.1999). An IJ's factual

determinations "must be upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative

evidence on the record considered as a whole." Tang v. I.N.S., 223 F.3d 713, 718 (8th

Cir.2000). "[This] standard is a deferential one, requiring a reviewing court to uphold

a denial of asylum unless an alien demonstrates that the evidence he presented was so

compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution." Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 816 (8th Cir.2004) (internal quotation

and citation omitted).Where, as here, the BIA affirms the IJ opinion without

discussion, we review the IJ's opinion directly. Gebrehiwot v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 723,

725 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Njenga submitted four grounds for her asylum petition. A lack of educational

opportunities and a generalized fear of crime are not permissible grounds for asylum.

Nyonzele v. I.N.S., 83 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that "[f]ears of economic

Appellate Case: 05-3088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293775
-3-

hardship or a lack of educational opportunities, however, do not establish a

well-founded fear of persecution"); Hapidudin v. Gonzales, 126 Fed. Appx. 406 (9th

Cir. 1005) (unpublished) (holding that generalized fear based upon crime is not a

ground for asylum or CAT relief). Therefore, Njenga's asylum petition must be rooted

in a well-founded fear of FGM.

A well-founded fear of future persecution must be both subjectively genuine

and objectively reasonable. Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2004).

The IJ assumed that Njenga had a credible and reasonable subjective fear of FGM.

However, the IJ determined that this fear was not objectively reasonable. 

The IJ based its conclusion that Njenga's fear of FGM was not objectively

reasonable on several factual findings: (1) Njenga had managed to live in Kenya into

her twenties without being subjected to FGM; (2) Njenga admitted to her asylum

officer that FGM is rarely performed on adults; (3) Njenga's parents, grandparents,

and siblings all oppose FGM; (4) Njenga stated that if she were returned, then she

would most likely live in Nairobi, the Kenyan capital, where the practice of FGM is

rare; (6) only 38% of the Kenyan female population had undergone FGM, most of the

victims living in rural communities; and (7) the Kenyan government had outlawed the

practice of FGM.

Njenga does not dispute any of these findings. The IJ's determination that

Njenga lacked an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution is

amply supported by the record. Her petition is denied. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3088 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293775