Josephine Ngumbi v. Loretta Lynch, No. 14-1855 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1855 JOSEPHINE MBETE NGUMBI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 8, 2015 Decided: June 12, 2015 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Tracey N. McDonald, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Josephine Mbete Ngumbi, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the judge’s order denying her application for asylum. * immigration We deny the petition for review. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th Cir. 2015). Such findings are conclusive “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold the Board’s decision “unless contrary it is discretion.” reviewed to law and an Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). the documentary manifestly record, evidence, including and Ngumbi’s conclude that testimony substantial abuse of We have and the evidence supports the finding that Ngumbi failed to establish a nexus between her past harm or her fear of future harm on account of a protected ground. Accordingly, the record does not compel a different result. * The immigration judge also denied Ngumbi’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Ngumbi has abandoned review of those decisions by failing to challenge those decisions in her brief. Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 565 n.2 (4th Cir. 2013). 2 We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
