-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HENRIETTA LEANA NICOL, Petitioner, v. No. 96-1810 U.S. IMMIGRATION& NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A71-795-237) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Randall L. Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Senior Litiga- tion Counsel, Jane R. Gomez, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Henrietta Leana Nicol petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We deny the petition. Nicol challenges the Immigration Judge's finding that she was not credible based upon inconsistencies between her testimony and the information she supplied in two applications for asylum. An Immigra- tion Judge's credibility determination is to be granted substantial def- erence and is reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. See Figeroa v. INS,
886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that Immigra- tion Judge who rejects a witness' positive testimony based on a lack of credibility should offer specific reasons for disbelief). In Nicol's case, the Immigration Judge offered several concrete examples of contradictions noted between Nicol's testimony and her asylum appli- cations which led to his conclusion that her testimony was not credi- ble. Nicol concedes these inconsistencies, but argues that she explained them and that the Immigration Judge's determination that she was not credible on the basis of these inconsistencies was a "mis- interpretation of the facts and law." In support of this argument, Nicol cites to two Ninth Circuit cases: Platero-Cortez v. INS,
804 F.2d 1127(9th Cir. 1986), and Damaize-Job v. INS,
787 F.2d 1332(9th Cir. 1986). We find these cases to be distinguishable from Nicol's factual situation, and therefore unconvincing. Accordingly, we find no reason to reverse either the Immigration Judge's finding that Nicol was not credible or his subsequent denial of her request for asylum on that basis. We therefore deny Nicol's petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres- ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 96-1810
Filed Date: 4/25/1997
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021