United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1675 ROSEMARY WANJIKU, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,* Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, Souter,** Associate Justice, and Stahl, Circuit Judge. Duane M. Hamilton, Esq. on brief for petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, and Corey L. Farrell, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for respondent. * Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General William P. Barr has been substituted for former Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions, III as the respondent. ** Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation. March 15, 2019 STAHL, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Rosemary Wanjiku, a native and citizen of Kenya, seeks review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions. Wanjiku was first ordered removed to Kenya in 2013, but she did not leave the country at that time. More than three years later, in 2016, she sought to reopen proceedings, claiming that conditions within Kenya had changed since her prior removal proceedings and now supported a claim for asylum. An Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied her motion, concluding that the conditions complained of were continuing, not changed, and the BIA affirmed that decision on June 22, 2018. After careful review, we find the BIA did not abuse its discretion and deny the petition accordingly. I. On or about March 19, 2000, Wanjiku entered the United States at Newark, New Jersey, with authorization to remain for a temporary period, not to exceed September 18, 2000.1 Wanjiku remained in the country well past that date and, on July 19, 2010, she married a U.S. citizen. Shortly thereafter, the couple filed papers to adjust Wanjiku's status to that of a permanent resident 1 We draw the facts as set forth below from the administrative record, including sworn statements and other documents that Wanjiku presented in support of her application. See Tota v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 161, 163 (1st Cir. 2006). - 3 - alien. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") notified Wanjiku's spouse of its intent to deny the application, and the couple sought to withdraw their respective petitions in June 2012. On July 16, 2012, DHS issued Wanjiku a Notice to Appear (the "Notice"), which charged Wanjiku with removability for remaining in the United States beyond the term authorized by her visa in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). The Notice separately alleged that Wanjiku's marriage was a sham and constituted a fraudulent attempt to procure an immigration benefit, and so charged her with removability under 8 U.S.C §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and 1227(a)(1)(A). Wanjiku conceded removability for overstaying her visa, but denied any fraud. At a hearing held on April 22, 2013, DHS withdrew the fraud charge, electing to seek Wanjiku's removal ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals