Opinion ID: 201296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Njenga is a native and citizen of Kenya. She entered the United States on September 6, 1996 as a non-immigrant visitor. 3 In April 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued a notice of removal that charged Njenga with unlawfully remaining in the United States and being subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). 2 At her removal hearing before an immigration judge (IJ), Njenga conceded that she was removable, but she applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT. 4 Ruhiu, also a native and citizen of Kenya, entered the United States on March 15, 1998 as a non-immigrant student. In 2001, Ruhiu, like Njenga: (1) was accused of unlawfully remaining in the United States; (2) was charged with being subject to removal under § 1227(a)(1)(B); and (3) at his removal proceeding, conceded that he was removable. Ruhiu, however, did not apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT. Instead, he alleged that he and Njenga were married and attempted to derivatively benefit from Njenga's application. 5 During her removal hearing, Njenga stated that: (1) she and her family were either members of, or otherwise involved with, the Mungiki, a religious group that rejects Western culture in favor of traditional African values; (2) the Mungiki forcefully advocate female genital mutilation (FGM); (3) members of the Mungiki live throughout Kenya; (4) if she returns to Kenya, members of the Mungiki will subject her to FGM, and the Kenyan government will persecute her because of her connections to the Mungiki; and (5) she married Ruhiu before she left Kenya. Njenga submitted documents to support her testimony, including two unsigned affidavits from one of her brothers discussing the Mungiki, and an array of articles from a variety of sources about the Mungiki. 6 In response to a request from the IJ, the United States Department of State (DOS) submitted an advisory letter pertaining to the Mungiki. The letter averred that: (1) the DOS has seen no reports of anyone being threatened with harm for leaving the Mungiki; (2) the DOS is unaware of any incident of anyone being harmed because of his or her relative's affiliation with the Mungiki; (3) the Mungiki are not present throughout [Kenya]; (4) government action against the Mungiki generally is against members who were engaged in some form of public, and at times disorderly, action; and (5) the DOS is unaware of any case in which the Mungiki have forced a woman to undergo FGM. 7 On April 26, 2002, the IJ denied Njenga's application for relief and ordered that she and Ruhiu either voluntarily leave the United States or be removed to Kenya. The IJ found that Njenga was barred from applying for asylum because her application was untimely and she was ineligible for the exception to the requirement that such applications be timely filed. 3 In addition, the IJ concluded that Njenga failed to establish her eligibility for withholding of removal or relief under CAT. The IJ based her conclusion on her determination that Njenga was not a credible witness. In making that determination, the IJ stressed that Njenga's testimony, particularly her testimony about the Mungiki, lacked sufficient detail, 4 was inconsistent, 5 and was not supported by the submitted documentary evidence. Finally, the IJ declared that even if Njenga had established her eligibility for relief, Ruhiu would not have been entitled to benefit from that eligibility because he and Njenga were not married. 8 Njenga and Ruhiu appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA. On December 17, 2003, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's ruling. Njenga and Ruhiu then filed a timely appeal to this court. 9 In their petition to this court, Njenga and Ruhiu argue that: (1) their removal proceedings were void because the charging documents issued to them, that is, the notices to appear, were either not signed or not signed by an appropriate individual; (2) the IJ and BIA erred when they found that Njenga was ineligible to apply for asylum; (3) the IJ and BIA erred when they concluded that Njenga failed to establish her eligibility for withholding of removal or relief under CAT; and (4) the IJ and BIA erred when they determined that Njenga and Ruhiu were not married.