Grace Cirindi Kiruki v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRACE CIRINDI KIRUKI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73422
Agency No. A088-284-484
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Grace Cirindi Kiruki, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
MAR 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA found Kiruki not credible because her testimony and declaration
were inconsistent with her son’s letter regarding what happened to the son when he
was attacked in 2005, and based on an omission from her declaration and direct
testimony that Kenyan police arrested her twice. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the
circumstances standard); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.
2011) (upholding an adverse credibility determination based on an omission of
important incidents). We reject Kiruki’s contentions that the agency failed to
consider the totality of circumstances, including expert evidence. We lack
jurisdiction to consider Kiruki’s contentions regarding IJ bias that she did not raise
on appeal to the BIA. See Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008).
In the absence of credible testimony, Kiruki’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
12-73422 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Kiruki’s CAT claim
because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and Kiruki does not
point to any evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more
likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Kenya. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1048-49. We reject Kiruki’s contention that the BIA’s analysis of her CAT
claim was deficient. Thus, her CAT claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-73422 3

-- 3 of 3 --