Viviane Sonkeng v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 459 F. App'x 378 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-60265     Document: 00511735559         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/25/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 25, 2012
    No. 11-60265
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    VIVIANE TIWA MEJOGUEFAC SONKENG; PATRICE NGALLA NDEMA,
    Petitioners
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.; U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A088 258 805
    BIA No. A088 258 806
    Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Petitioners Viviane Tiwa Mejoguefac Sonkeng and her husband Patrice
    Ngalla Ndema, natives and citizens of Cameroon, petition this court for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of their appeal of the
    Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their application for asylum and withholding
    of removal. The petitioners contend that the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility
    determination is not supported by substantial evidence and that the record
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 11-60265   Document: 00511735559      Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/25/2012
    No. 11-60265
    compels a conclusion that Sonkeng met the burden of proof necessary to
    establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. According to the
    petitioners, Sonkeng presented a compelling and well-corroborated account of
    persecution due to her political activities and membership in the Social
    Democratic Front (SDF), and the BIA erred in failing to consider all of the
    corroborating evidence in support of their application.
    Generally, we review the decision of the BIA and will only consider the IJ’s
    underlying decision if it influenced the BIA’s determination. Ontunez-Tursios
    v. Ashcroft, 
    303 F.3d 341
    , 348 (5th Cir. 2002). Because the BIA approved of and
    relied upon the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we may review the IJ’s
    decision. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 
    293 F.3d 899
    , 903 (5th Cir. 2002).
    Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the IJ and BIA identified specific
    and cogent reasons for the adverse credibility determination. Although it is
    questionable whether Sonkeng’s testimony regarding her arrest history was
    inconsistent with the statement made in her visa application and whether
    Sonkeng submitted her most current SDF membership card, the record supports
    the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that Sonkeng’s testimony regarding the date
    she ceased attending school was inconsistent with the statement made in her
    asylum application. The record also provides that Sonkeng resided in Germany
    for over four years without seeking asylum protection from the German
    government, that Sonkeng voluntarily returned to Cameroon for a over a
    month-long stay in 2002, and that despite her fugitive status, Sonkeng was able
    to obtain a valid passport and student visa under her legal name, pass through
    Cameroonian security at the airport, and board a plane to Germany without
    incident. Although the petitioners presented some corroborating evidence in
    support of their asylum and withholding of removal claims and provided
    explanations for the discrepancies, omissions, and implausibilities noted by
    the IJ and BIA, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the IJ or BIA with
    2
    Case: 11-60265   Document: 00511735559     Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/25/2012
    No. 11-60265
    respect to factual findings based on credibility determinations. See Wang v.
    Holder, 
    569 F.3d 531
    , 537 (5th Cir. 2009). The record does not compel a
    determination that Sonkeng was credible, and the totality of the circumstances
    does not suggest that no reasonable factfinder could have made the adverse
    credibility ruling. See 
    id. at 538-40
     (upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility
    finding because nothing in the record compelled belief in the applicant’s story).
    Accordingly, we defer to the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination,
    and the petitioners’ petition for review is DENIED. Because the petitioners do
    not challenge the BIA’s dismissal of their claims for relief under the Convention
    Against Torture and voluntary departure, these issues are waived. See Thuri
    v. Ashcroft, 
    380 F.3d 788
    , 793 (5th Cir. 2004).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-60265

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 378

Judges: Benavides, Clement, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 1/25/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023