UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1855
JOSEPHINE MBETE NGUMBI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 8, 2015 Decided: June 12, 2015
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Tracey N. McDonald, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Josephine Mbete Ngumbi, a native and citizen of Kenya,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying her application for asylum. * We deny the
petition for review.
We review factual findings for substantial evidence.
Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th Cir. 2015).
Such findings are conclusive “unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). We will uphold the Board’s decision
“unless it is manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of
discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We have
reviewed the record, including Ngumbi’s testimony and the
documentary evidence, and conclude that substantial evidence
supports the finding that Ngumbi failed to establish a nexus
between her past harm or her fear of future harm on account of a
protected ground. Accordingly, the record does not compel a
different result.
*
The immigration judge also denied Ngumbi’s applications
for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. Ngumbi has abandoned review of those decisions
by failing to challenge those decisions in her brief. Karimi v.
Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 565 n.2 (4th Cir. 2013).
2
We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3