NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a1259n.06 No. 12-3259 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT MARYL I NE CHEPKORI R MARI TI M, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE U

NI TED STATES BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEF ORE: GUY, SUTTON, a nd COOK, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Mary

line Chepkorir Maritim petitions for revie w of an order of the Boa rd of I mmigra

tion Appea ls (B I A) dismiss ing her appea l from an immigra tion judge ’s (I J ) decision denying her a

pplication for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( CAT) and or deringher r emoval to Keny a. We deny Maritim’s petition. Maritim, a native and citizen o f Kenya, enter ed the United States in J anuar y 2004 as a nonimmigra

nt student to attend Fontbonne University in St. L ouis, Missouri. Maritim last attended the university in April 2004. After Maritim provided a counter feit social secur ity car d to apply for an Ohio driver’s license , the Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

serve d her w ith a notice to appe ar

o n Dec ember 10, 2007, char g ing her with remova bility under section 237(a) (1)( C)(i ) o f t h e I mmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1)( C)(i), for failing to maintain or comply withNo. 12-3259

Maritim v. Holder the conditions of her nonimmigra nt status. I n a hea

ring befor e an I J , Maritim admitted the fac tual alleg ations in the notice to appe ar a nd conce ded re movability as cha rg ed. On J anuar

y 26, 2009, Maritim filed an application for asy lum, withholding of remova l, and protec tion under the CAT, asser ting that, if she returne d to Keny a, she would be require d to live with her fathe r’s tribe (the Kip s i gi s , a s u bg roup of the Kalenjin) and forc ed to underg o fema le g enital mutilation (F GM). After an evidentiar y hear ing, the I J denied Maritim’s application and order ed her

remova l to Keny a. The I J found that Maritim was “a g ener ally cre dible witness” but discounted her expert witness’s testimony

. The I J went on to c onclude that Maritim’s application for asylum was timely based on her demonst ra t i o n o f chang ed circumstance s aff ecting her eligibility for asy lum. Wit h respe ct to that e ligibility , the I J deter mined that a verba l thr eat to subje ct Maritim to FGM in 1993 did not amount to past perse cut i o n . The I J found that Maritim had a subjective fea r of returning to Keny a based on her membership in a particula r social g roup: unmarrie d fema les from the Kipsigis tribe in Keny a who have not underg one FGM. But the I J found that Maritim’s fea r was not an objectively rea sonable one and there fore denied her as y l u m ap p l ication. The I J also deter mined that Maritim failed to establish elig ibilit y for withholding of remova l or protec tion under the CAT. Maritim appea led the I J ’s dec ision to t he BI A. Dismissi ng the appeal, t he BI A upheld the I J ’s dec ision deny ing Ma ritim’s application. This timely petition for re view followe d. Maritim contends that the BIA summarily aff irmed the I J ’s decision without conducting an individualiz ed revie w of the rec ord and her leg al arguments. To the contra ry , the BIA issued a three

pag e order dis cussing the evidence in the record and addre ssing Maritim’s argument s . W h ere, as -2-No. 12-3259

Maritim v. Holder here , “the BIA revie ws the immigration judg e’s decision and issues a separ ate opinion, rathe r than summarily aff

irming the immigration judge ’s decision, we review t h e BI A’s decision as the final ag ency deter

mination.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). “To the extent the BIA adopted the immigration judge ’s rea soning, howeve r, this Court al s o reviews the immigra tion judge ’s dec ision.” Id

. Maritim’s brief ref

ers to various standards of revie w, such as clea r err or, abuse of discretion, and manifestly contra

ry to law. We revi ew t h e age ncy ’s fac tual deter mination as to whether an asy lum applicant qualifies as a ref ug ee for substantial evidenc e. Y u v. Ashcroft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004). Under that standard, “the administrative finding s of fac t are conclusive unless any

rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). Maritim challeng es the ag ency ’s deter mination that she failed to demonstrate an objectively

rea sonable fea

r of FGM if returne d to Keny a. An as y l um applicant bear s the burden of proving ref ug ee status by demonstrating either past perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution

on acc ount of a protec ted g round. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) -(b) ; see also Ndrecaj v. Mukase y , 522 F.3d 6 6 7 , 674 (6th Cir. 2008). A well-founde d fea r of future perse cution “must be both subjecti v el y g enuine and objectiv el y re as o n able.” Mapouya v. Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 412 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Her e, the BI

A ag ree d with the I J that Maritim failed to establish that her fea r of being forc ed to underg o FGM was objectively rea sonable, noting t h at : (1) Maritim’s mother and sisters wer e

never subjected to FGM; (2) her pare nts, who still live in Keny a, support her opposition to FGM and have protec ted her from such harm for her entire life; (3) her mother now lives in Kisumu with her -3-No. 12-3259

Maritim v. Holder

own pare nts, who are members of the Luo tribe which does not pr actice FGM; (4) even if Maritim

wer e forc ed to live with her fathe r’s tribe, her fathe r would be prese nt to protec t her from such harm

as h e h as alway s done in the past; (5) even within her fathe r’s tribe, only 48 perc ent of g irls have underg one FGM; (6) Keny a has outlawed FGM; and (7) althoug h FGM is still pract i ce d, the Depa rtment of State country repor ts indicate that the prac tice is on the decline and occur s mainly in

rura l are as. The BIA further held that Maritim failed to meet her burden to establish that reloc ation within Ke ny a to a more urban are a was not rea sonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 2)(ii), (b)( 3)(i); Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder , 607 F.3d 1145, 1155 & n.6 (6th Cir. 2010). As the B I A noted, Mar itim admitted that she would probably be safe in a larg e city and that she mig ht be able to live with he r

m o t h er . Although Maritim claimed that her fathe r’s family would come for her if she reloc at ed within Keny a, she acknow ledg ed that there are laws ag ainst kidnapping , and the rec ord ref lects that the Keny an g overnme nt does not support or sponsor FGM. The rec ord does not compel a conclusion contra ry to the ag ency ’s deter

mination that Maritim failed to establish an objectively rea sonable fea r of future perse cution and ther efor e fa iled to demonstrate e ligibility for a sy lum. Maritim does not challeng e the ag ency ’s denial of withholding o f remova l and protec tion under the CAT, thus forf

eiting those claims. See Abdurakhmanov v. Holder , 666 F.3d 978, 981 n.2 (6th Cir. 2012). Reg ardle ss, beca use substantial evidenc e supports the ag ency ’s deter mination that Maritim failed to establish elig ibilit y for asylum, she cannot satisfy the more stringe nt standards for withholding of remova l and protec tion under the CAT. See Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 532 (6th Cir. 2006). For the fore g oing r easons, we deny Maritim’s petition for re view. -4-