N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HARR ISON GAC HUKIA KAM AU,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-71276 Age n c y No. A089-303-397
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 9, 2020 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R and W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd KOB AYASHI, *** Distric t Judge
. Harrison Ga c hukia

Kam a u, a native and c itiz e n of Ke ny a , pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his untime ly 

# FIL ED OCT 14 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Le slie E. Koba

y a shi, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ha

w a ii, sitting by

de signa tion.m otion to re o pe n h i s a p plic ation for a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). The B IA de nie d Kam a u’ s m otion to re ope n

a s tim e -barre d unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C ). W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n for a

b use of disc re tion a

nd re vie w que stions of la

w de novo. Bonilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th C ir. 2016). W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we de ny the pe tition. A m o tion to re o pe n ge ne ra lly m ust be file d within ninety

da y s of the e ntry of
a fina l a d m inistra tive orde r of re m ova l . 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i); 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(2). Howe ve r, the re is no tim e lim it on thefiling of a m otion to re ope n if the pe t ition pre se n ts ne wly disc ove re d or pre viously una va ila ble e v ide nc e showing c ha

nge d c irc um sta

nc e s a rising in the

c ountry of nationa lity or the c ountry to whic h re m ova l ha s be e n orde re d. 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(ii); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); C

handra v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th C ir. 2014). The B IA pe rm issibly c onc lude d tha t Ka m a u’ s wife ’ s a sy l um

a pplic ation a

nd pote ntia l te stim ony

did not c onstitute

ne w e vide nc e . In 2012, theim m igration judge (“ IJ” ) c onside re d a de c la ra tion from Kam a

u’ s wife ; he r a sy lum

a pplic ation
and se c ond de c la

ra tion a ddre ss the sa

m e c rim e and the re fore are not ne w e vide nc e . The B IA a lso pe rm issibly re je c te d Ka m a u’ s a lle gations c onc e rning
c onditions in Ke

ny a . Ka m a u’ s de c la ra tion de sc ribe s e ve nts tha t took pla c e be fore
2he le ft Ke ny a , a nd Ka m a u la c ks pe rsona l knowle d ge a bout the c urre n t c onditions in Ke ny a . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Ka m a u would be ine l igible for a sy lum

e ve n if the m e rits of his c la im we re c onside re d. He ha s not shown tha

t C hristia n m a le s of the m a

jority Kikuy u tribe who opposethe M ungiki have the re quisitepa

rtic u l arity or soc ia l distinc tion in Ke ny a to c onstitute

a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group unde r the Im m igration a

nd Na tura liz ation Ac t for a sy lum
. Se e He nrique

z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1088–91 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). Furthe r, nothing in Ka

m a u ’ s m otion to re ope n a ddre sse d the B IA’ s e arlie r c onc lusion tha

t the M ungiki ta

rge te d Ka m a u for e c onom ic re a sons, not on ac c ount of any prote c te d ground. S e e K amau v . Se

ssions , 706 F. App’ x 395, 396 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ [S] ubsta

ntia l e vide n c e supports the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the M ungiki ta rge te d [Kam a

u ] be c a u s e of his e c onom ic sta

t us in thec om

m unity a s the owne r of
a matatu –a

ty pe of m inibus.” ). Fina lly , Kam a u ha s wa ive d a

ny argum e n t

ba se d on
a lte rnative soc ia l groups. The B IA prope rly

re je c te d Ka m a u’ s c la im tha t his son’ s a sy lum

a pplic ation pre s e nts e vide nc e of c ha

n ge d c irc um sta

nc e s. Ka m a u ’ s son a lle ge s tha

t M ungiki
m e m b e rs be at, a

bduc te d, a

nd forc e d him

to c om m it to the orga

niz at ion. The B IA found tha t Ka m a u’ s son wa s not ta

rge t e d ba se d

on a prote c t e d ground, but wa s
3subje c t to ga n g re c ruitm e nt. Se e He nrique z-Riv as , 707 F.3d a

t 1092–93 (noting that ge ne ra liz e d opposition or re sista nc e to ga ngs or ga ng re c ruitm e nt doe s not
c onstitute a prote c te d group). Furthe r, Kam a u m a de no showing tha

t he would be
re c ruite d by

the M ungiki or tha

t he would be ta

rge te d by the M ungiki dueto his
re lationship with his son. The B IA did not viola

te due proc e ss. The B IA c onside re d Ka m a u’ s argum e nts a

nd provide d a

re a sona b le ba sis for re

je c ting his motion to re ope n. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (noting tha t the B IA ne e d not write “ an e x e ge s is on e ve ry c onte ntion,” but ne e d

only “ c o nside r the issue s ra ise d, a nd a nnounc e its de c ision in term s suffic ie nt to e na ble a re v ie wing c ourt to pe rc e ive tha

t it ha s he ard a

nd thought a

nd not m e re ly

re a c te d” (c ita

tion a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d)). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4