Joyce Thuku v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1302 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1302 JOYCE WANJIKU THUKU; MWANZIA THUKU, a/k/a Muanzia Thuku; MOSES MWANGI THUKU, a/k/a Moses Muangie Thuku; KARUNGU THUKU; NYAMBURA THUKU, a/k/a Umbura Thuku, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: September 5, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Margaret A. O Donnell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Petitioners Joyce Wanjiku Thuku and her four children, natives and citizens of Kenya, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) order dismissing the appeal of the immigration judge s order denying Thuku s application for withholding of removal. * We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including Thuku s declaration, the various supporting documents presented to the immigration court, and the transcript of the merits hearing. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the immigration judge s finding that Thuku failed to demonstrate a nexus between her past persecution and claimed fear protected grounds. (2006). Our of future persecution and the statutorily See 8 U.S.C. ยงยง 1231(b)(3)(A), 1252(b)(4)(B) review of the record further confirms that substantial evidence supports the Board s decision to uphold the immigration judge s withholding of removal. denial of Thuku s application for See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 * Thuku s four children were riders on her application, through which Thuku sought only withholding of removal. (Petitioners Br. at 2 n.2). This court has held that the statute permitting withholding of removal does not encompass derivative withholding claims, that is, claims for withholding of removal based on persecution to another person; instead, an alien seeking withholding of removal must establish that they will suffer harm if removed. Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 513 (4th Cir. 2007). Both the Board and the immigration judge acknowledged the limitation on derivative claims for withholding of removal, and Thuku does not contest this issue. 2 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining the high degree of deference this court affords to the Board s determination of eligibility for withholding of removal ). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 2013). legal before See In re: Thuku (B.I.A. Feb. 5, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
