Dorcas Kariuki v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1297 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1297 DORCAS WANGARI KARIUKI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 27, 2015 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, November 17, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Liam Ge, LIAMSLAW IMMIGRATION PRACTICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Surell Brady, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Dorcas Wangari Kariuki, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for withholding of removal and protection under thoroughly reviewed Kariuki’s conclude merits that the the Convention the record, hearing record and Torture. * Against including all the supporting evidence does not We have transcript evidence. compel a of We ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), supports the Board’s decision. Accordingly, we deny legal before that substantial evidence See Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359. the reasons stated by the Board. 2015). and petition for review for the In re: Kariuki (B.I.A. Feb. 23, 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 * Kariuki does not challenge the denial of her asylum claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). 2

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.