Luddy Angira & Keens Oyugi v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-2105 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2105 LUDDY ANGIRA; KEENS OMONDI OYUGI, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 30, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kell Enow, ENOW & ASSOCIATES, Marietta, Georgia, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Luddy Angira and her husband, derivative applicant Keens Oyugi, both natives and citizens of Kenya, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge s denial of Angira s applications for relief from removal. Petitioners first challenge the determination Angira failed to establish eligibility for asylum. that To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. requisite fear of persecution. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Angira cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Angira failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Kenya. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 2 the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.