Nancy Njoroge v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-60214 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60214 Document: 00513305869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60214 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 14, 2015 NANCY MURINGI NJOROGE, Petitioner Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 355 605 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nancy Muringi Njoroge, a native and citizen of Kenya, has petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal and conclusion that she was not entitled to asylum, withholding of deportation, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Njoroge contends that she made the necessary showing to be eligible for relief. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-60214 Document: 00513305869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 No. 15-60214 We conclude that Njoroge has abandoned her claims by failing to brief them sufficiently. Her attorney-prepared brief perfunctorily and generally sets forth the claims that she seeks to assert on appeal. Njoroge fails to cite to the record or otherwise discuss pertinent facts, does not apply the relevant legal standards to the facts of the case, and provides no legal analysis or substantive discussion of the bases for her claims. Moreover, Njoroge does not contest the grounds upon which the IJ and the BIA denied her claims and does not address substantively any specific error committed by the IJ or the BIA. Thus, because Njoroge has not offered a meaningful factual discussion or legal analysis, she has effectively waived her claims for relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned); Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir. 1986); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Accordingly, Njoroge’s petition for review is DENIED. 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.
