CHARLES NGETHE, AKA Charles Muchaf, AKA Charles Ngethe Muchai, AKA Charles M. Ngethe v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES NGETHE, AKA Charles
Muchaf, AKA Charles Ngethe Muchai,
AKA Charles M. Ngethe,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70454
Agency No. A205-464-980
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 18, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge.
FILED
OCT 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Charles Ngethe petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s
(BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the denial of relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT) by an Immigration Judge (IJ). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The BIA’s determination that Ngethe failed to establish that he is “more
likely than not to be tortured,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a), if he returns to Kenya is
supported by substantial evidence. While the evidence indicates that “[v]iolence
against LGBT persons [i]s a problem” (and in some cases, the police were involved
in the violence), police have intervened to stop attacks in other cases and there is
evidence that the situation of LGBT persons in Kenya is improving. Because the
evidence in the record is inconclusive, it does not compel the conclusion that
Ngethe faces an individualized risk of being tortured in Kenya if returned. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject Ngethe’s argument that the IJ erred by failing to review the 2014
State Department Report. There is no indication that the 2014 Report contained
“highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence” not included elsewhere in
the record, particularly in the 2013 State Department Report, to which the IJ made
specific reference. Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor did the
IJ err by failing to mention other evidence submitted by Ngethe; the IJ is not
2

-- 2 of 3 --

required to “parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of
evidence offered by the petitioner.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
PETITION DENIED
3

-- 3 of 3 --