Opinion ID: 1036593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Hearing Before the IJ

Text: Gathungu and Mugo both testified before the IJ. Mugo testified that, when they lived in Kenya, Gathungu often took business trips, varying from one day to longer than a week. She recalled Gathungu once returned home from a trip with wounds on his legs, and he told her he had been injured in an accident. She could not remember the date of that particular trip. She testified that she did not know of her husband's involvement with the Mungiki until after they arrived in the United States. She also testified that both she and Gathungu oppose FGM and that neither she nor their daughters had undergone FGM. She testified that she feared the Mungiki based on the torture of Gathungu and the Mungiki's support of FGM. The IJ questioned Gathungu regarding the dates and length of his torture by the Mungiki, noting Gathungu had claimed to be held for a month on a red-lined asylum application but testified to being held only a few days. Gathungu explained the one month referred to when the Mungiki were following him. Gathungu also testified that no Mungiki member had inquired of Gathungu whether his wife and daughters had undergone FGM. Gathungu testified that he and his wife were against FGM and that neither his wife nor their two daughters had undergone FGM. 1 In addition to unlawful detentions of suspected Mungiki members, the Kenyan government has been accused of extrajudicial killings of suspected Mungiki members. -4- Additionally, petitioners offered the expert testimony of Dr. Marsha Freeman. Dr. Freeman was the director of the International Women's Rights Action Watch, had worked on and studied women's rights in legal systems in sub-Saharan Africa, and had worked on reviews of the Kenyan police. Dr. Freeman testified that in her opinion Gathungu would be in danger of persecution or death if he returned to Kenya. She testified that Mugo and their daughters would be in danger of being kidnapped and forcibly subjected to FGM by the Mungiki. She testified that although many Mungiki activities were violent, it was a large organization, and she believed it was reasonable that some members joined simply to express their political beliefs and were not involved in violent activities. Although Dr. Freeman studied legal systems in sub-Saharan Africa and the Kenyan police force specifically, she testified she had not known anything about the Mungiki before being asked to testify. She testified that the Kenyan police force was widely corrupt. Finally, petitioners submitted a large documentary record of reports and news stories detailing the targeting of Mungiki defectors and the government's inability or unwillingness to stop violence perpetrated by Mungiki members. On April 25, 2007, the IJ denied Gathungu's claims and his family's derivative claims (the IJ's first decision) based both on adverse credibility findings and on the merits. The IJ found Gathungu not credible because of the inconsistencies between his red-lined asylum application and his testimony regarding the dates and the length of his torture by the Mungiki. She also found it unlikely Gathungu could be a member of the Mungiki and yet have a wife and daughters not subjected to FGM. She also doubted the Mungiki would have continued to accept Gathungu's false reports of new recruits' names after his torture. She noted Gathungu had presented no corroborating evidence of his Mungiki membership. The IJ found Mugo generally credible, but noted that most of Mugo's probative testimony—Mugo's testimony regarding the torture of her husband and the threat of the Mungiki—was based on what Gathungu had told Mugo, not on Mugo's first-hand knowledge. Although the -5- IJ found Dr. Freeman generally credible, she ruled Dr. Freeman did not qualify as an expert because Dr. Freeman had no specialized knowledge of the Mungiki. Although the IJ held Gathungu's claims failed as a result of the adverse credibility finding, the IJ also denied all claims on the merits. She held that Gathungu had failed to show he was a member of a particular social group subject to persecution, failed to show the Mungiki persecuted him because of a political opinion, and failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution. She described Gathungu as a member of a banned criminal organization, and the Kenyan government may prosecute those who violate its legitimate criminal laws.2 Petitioners appealed to the BIA, and on December 3, 2008, the BIA denied their appeal (the BIA's first opinion). The BIA expressly declined to evaluate the IJ's credibility findings. Instead, the BIA concluded Gathungu was unable to demonstrate the requisite social visibility such that others would be able to identify members as part of a group comprised of Mungiki defectors. Further, the BIA continued, it was not convinced by the [petitioners]' assertion that any mistreatment is on account of [Gathungu]'s political opinion or dissent from the Mungiki. The BIA agreed with the IJ that petitioners were unable to establish that the Kenyan government is unwilling or unable to control the Mungiki. The BIA also approved the IJ's decision to reject Dr. Freeman's proffered expert testimony. Finally, the BIA rejected the derivative claims of Mugo and the couple's daughters. Petitioners then submitted a petition for review to the Eighth Circuit. In August 2009, before the appeal was heard, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Gathungu for deportation. Upon petitioners' 2 Both the IJ and the BIA referred to the Mungiki as a criminal syndicate or organization. Notably, however, the Kenyan government did not ban the Mungiki until sometime after Gathungu left the group. -6- emergency motion for stay in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Office of the Solicitor General agreed not to remove petitioners pending their Eighth Circuit appeal, and ICE released Gathungu.