Gbane v. Holder , 423 F. App'x 297 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2183
AMADOU GBANE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 17, 2011 Decided: April 15, 2011
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kofi Asamoah, ASAMOAH & ASSOCIATES, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Yedidya Cohen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Amadou Gbane, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2006). The INA defines a refugee as a person
unwilling or unable to return to her native country “because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
of the enumerated grounds. . . .” Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405
F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2010), and can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
2
(2010). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004).
A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony
on credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]”
for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989).
“Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent
statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable
testimony . . . .” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
This court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to
credibility findings supported by substantial evidence.
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s
interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations.” Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This
3
court will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . .
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that
an alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless
manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.’”
Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).
In this case, the immigration judge made credibility
findings adverse to the Petitioner, which we conclude were
supported by substantial evidence. We note that the immigration
judge was not obligated to accept Gbane’s explanations for the
numerous inconsistencies. Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 122
(4th Cir. 2007). Thus, the record does not compel a different
result with regard to the denial of asylum or withholding of
removal. Because the adverse credibility finding casts
considerable doubt of Gbane’s claim that he was a victim of past
persecution and that he was a member of an opposition political
party, the record does not compel a finding that it is more
likely than not that Gbane will be the victim of torture.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the denial of relief
under the CAT.
4
Therefore, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
5