The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-60789•Summary Calendar MICHAEL ONGUBO NYAIGOTI v. Michael Bmukasey, U Sattorney General
07-60789Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitSep 18, 2008
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-60789
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL ONGUBO NYAIGOTI
Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 997 406
Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Ongubo Nyaigoti, a citizen and native of Kenya, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) dismissal of his appeal of
the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding
of removal. To obtain withholding of removal, an applicant must show a clear
probability of persecution if removed. Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th
Cir. 2004).
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 18, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-60789
2
Nyaigoti challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and the IJ’s
determination that Nyaigoti failed to show a clear probability of persecution, if
he were to return to Kenya, on account of his alleged membership in a political
party. Nyaigoti asserts that the inconsistencies in his live testimony and the
evidence are not material to his claims. Although Nyaigoti seeks to minimize
the importance of the inconsistencies, our review of the record does not compel
a determination contrary to that of the IJ. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th
Cir. 1994); see also Efe, 293 F.3d at 905. Similarly, Nyaigoti has failed to show
that the evidence of past persecution or the probability of future persecution is
so compelling as to require a conclusion contrary to that of the IJ. Chen v.
Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d at 138.
The petition for review is DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.