Mellen K. Maranga v. Alberto Gonzales, No. 06-3080 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - immigration. Petition for review of decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture and voluntary departure is denied. Asylum claim was untimely and court lacks jurisdiction to review timeliness, withholding claim was abandoned, and CAT decision is unreviewable for failure to appeal denial of that decision to the Board.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3080 ___________ Mellen Kwamboka Maranga * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of an Order of the v. * Board of Immigration Appeals. * Peter Keisler, Acting Attorney General * [UNPUBLISHED] of the United States of America, * * Respondent. * ___________ Submitted: September 28, 2007 Filed: October 12, 2007 ___________ Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Mellen Kwamboka Maranga, a native and citizen of Kenya, overstayed her visitor visa to the United States, and immigration authorities commenced removal proceedings against her. Maranga subsequently applied for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ), and voluntary departure. The immigration judge ( the IJ ) denied all four applications and held that Maranga's asylum application was frivolous. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision. Maranga now petitions this court for review of that decision. We deny the petition. The IJ denied asylum relief to Maranga because she failed to file her asylum application within one year of her arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). We lack jurisdiction to review this finding of untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Yakovenko v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 2007). The IJ denied withholding of removal, and Maranga failed to address this issue in her brief. We are unable to review her withholding claim because she abandoned the issue. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) ( A party's failure to raise or discuss an issue in his brief is to be deemed an abandonment of that issue. ) (internal quotation omitted). The IJ denied protection under CAT to Maranga and held that Maranga's asylum application was frivolous. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (providing that if an applicant knowingly made a frivolous application and received notice of the consequences of such an application, the applicant is permanently ineligible for immigration benefits). Maranga failed to appeal these decisions to the Board. We are unable to review the denial of relief under CAT or the finding of frivolousness because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not raising these issues before the Board. Frango v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2006). For these reasons, the 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.
