Opinion ID: 1036593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Hearing Before the IJ

Text: Following the Solicitor General's agreement not to remove petitioners pending their appeal, the BIA reopened proceedings, largely to allow petitioners to present new evidence from Gathungu's sister, Terry Wanjiku.3 After Gathungu was detained in August 2009, Mugo called Wanjiku to tell her Gathungu was being sent back to Kenya. Until that call, petitioners had not contacted Wanjiku since they had left Kenya, fearing knowledge of their whereabouts would endanger relatives still in Kenya. Mugo told Wanjiku that petitioners were afraid to return to Kenya because of the Mungiki. Wanjiku told Mugo that shortly after petitioners had left Kenya, the Mungiki had forced Wanjiku to undergo FGM. Neither Wanjiku nor petitioners could afford to fly Wanjiku to the United States from Kenya to testify at the second hearing; instead, Wanjiku wrote and signed a statement detailing her ordeal. Another person witnessed Wanjiku's signature on her statement, and Wanjiku sent the signed and witnessed statement to petitioners' attorney. Wanjiku also underwent a medical examination to confirm she had been subjected to FGM and sent the resulting medical report to petitioners' attorney. In her statement, Wanjiku claimed that men identifying themselves as Mungiki members came to Wanjiku's residence shortly after petitioners left Kenya. The men demanded she tell them where Gathungu had gone; Wanjiku told them she did not know. The men left but told her they would return. Some time later, men identifying themselves as Mungiki members again came to Wanjiku's home and demanded she tell them Gathungu's whereabouts. She told them she did not know where Gathungu was. The 3 In the reopened case, Mugo and the couple's daughters filed individual claims. -7- men then kidnaped her and forcibly subjected her to FGM, asking her several more times where Gathungu had gone. Wanjiku believed Mungiki members continued to watch her in hopes of finding Gathungu. At the second hearing, both Mugo and Gathungu testified. During Mugo's testimony, the IJ pointed out that the date on Wanjiku's medical report was difficult to read. Mugo testified that dates are written differently in Kenya than in the United States and that the date on the medical report was likely September 2009. Gathungu identified Wanjiku's signature on her statement. Additionally, through Mugo's testimony, petitioners introduced statements from Mugo's mother, Beth Mugo. Beth Mugo was a Kenyan government official. Mugo testified that Beth Mugo had told her the Kenyan government could not control the Mungiki. The IJ again denied all of petitioners' claims (the IJ's second decision). The IJ adopted her credibility findings from the IJ's first decision regarding Gathungu and again found him not credible. Noting that she had originally found Mugo credible, she ruled this time that Mugo was not credible. The IJ based her changed finding of credibility on the fact that Gathungu and Mugo were vague in their testimony about [Wanjiku] and neither could state when the incident occurred. Additionally, the Court finds it suspicious that only after [Gathungu] was detained by immigration did this claim of forced circumcision surface. The IJ discredited Wanjiku's statement, noting that the statement was not notarized and that petitioners had not proved the statement came from Kenya. The IJ stated that the medical report did not prove when Wanjiku had been subjected to FGM, nor did it prove the Mungiki had been the perpetrators; further, the IJ stated that the report did not prove Wanjiku's examination was conducted by a doctor. Petitioners had cited Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009), to support their claims that Mungiki defectors constituted a socially visible particular social group. The IJ summarily dismissed Gatimi, noting that she was not bound by it and -8- that she did not agree with the Seventh Circuit's views on the social visibility criterion. The IJ also again rejected petitioners' claim that the Kenyan government would be unwilling or unable to protect them from the Mungiki. The IJ cited reports that the Kenyan police have very strong policies against the Mungiki and concluded that the Kenyan police were willing and able to protect petitioners. Having discredited Wanjiku's evidence, the IJ found Mugo had not established a wellfounded fear of future persecution. The IJ also rejected the opinions of Beth Mugo on the grounds that she did not consider Beth Mugo an expert on the Kenyan government or the Mungiki and that Beth Mugo had not testified in person or submitted an affidavit. The IJ concluded that [e]ven if [petitioners] were credible, the Court would deny their applications on the merits. Finally, because of petitioners' credibility issues, the IJ denied voluntary departure. On appeal, the BIA upheld the denial of petitioners' claims on the merits (the BIA's second opinion). The BIA made no ruling regarding the IJ's credibility findings. The BIA found petitioners had not shown Mungiki defectors were a particular social group because petitioners had failed to demonstrate Mungiki defectors were socially visible to Kenyan society at large. The BIA held Gathungu's fear of the Mungiki arose from an 'individualized reaction' of the criminal organization to his leaving the syndicate, not from his status or any belief that he held as a defector. The BIA also found petitioners had failed to demonstrate that the Kenyan government was unable or unwilling to protect them from the Mungiki. It cited a 2005 country report relied upon by the IJ in concluding the Kenyan government was taking action against the Mungiki such that the violence perpetrated by the group had been reduced. Finally, the BIA dismissed the opinions of Beth Mugo. Following the IJ's second decision, petitioners' attorney's firm had volunteered to finance Wanjiku's travel from Kenya to testify in person before the IJ, and petitioners then requested the opportunity to allow Wanjiku to testify. The BIA -9- characterized petitioners' request as a motion to remand. Although the BIA agreed that Wanjiku's in-person testimony constituted new evidence, the BIA refused to remand because it held Wanjiku's testimony would not change the result. Declaring that petitioners had received a full and fair hearing, the BIA dismissed the appeal. Petitioners then sought review from this court.