United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3054 ___________________________ Nemmy James Ngugi Matiru lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ___________________________ No. 17-1007 ___________________________ Nemmy James Ngugi Matiru lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: December 7, 2017 Filed: December 12, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this consolidated matter, Kenyan citizen Nemmy James Ngugi Matiru petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. The BIA dismissed Matiru’s appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), which sustained a charge of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) (failure to fulfill marital agreement, which, in Attorney General’s opinion, was made to procure alien’s admission as immigrant) and ordered him removed to Kenya1. The BIA also denied his motion for reconsideration. Matiru contends that the agency applied the wrong standard in determining removability. He asserts that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was required to establish all facts that supported the removal charges with evidence that was “clear, unequivocal and convincing.” He also contends he was denied his procedural due-process right to a full and fair hearing because the IJ’s rulings regarding recusal, witness credibility, and the admission of evidence likely arose “from unintentional, implicit association bias.” He further claims the BIA mischaracterized his motion to reopen as a motion for reconsideration, and 1 The IJ’s decision denying Matiru’s application for statutory waiver of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) is not before this court. -2- improperly rejected his argument that Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (2016), required the IJ to recuse herself due to her prior contact with the immigration service officer who interviewed Matiru when the IJ worked as an attorney for DHS. This court concludes that the BIA applied the correct standard in determining that Matiru was removable under section 1227(a)(1)(A) in requiring DHS to establish the facts supporting the charges against Matiru by clear and convincing evidence. See Maric v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 520, 522 (8th Cir. 2017) (applying “clear and convincing” standard to alien who was removable under section 1227(a)(1)(A) based on inadmissibility at time of entry and adjustment of status). Matiru was not denied his procedural due-process right to a full and fair hearing by the IJ’s rulings or the BIA’s treatment of his motion. Williams does not require the IJ to recuse herself, as the record establishes that she had no previous knowledge or involvement in Matiru’s case prior to her role as an IJ conducting his proceedings. See United States v. Norwood, 854 F.3d 469, 471-72 (8th Cir. 2017) (finding no merit in defendant’s suggestion that due process required district court judge – a former U.S. Attorney who left government employ after first arrests were made ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals