Akhu v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MAURIN NECK MBA AKHU, a/k/a Maurin Awa Che, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-277-136)
June 21, 2006
September 11, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Maurin Neck Mba Akhu, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") adopting and affirming the immigration judge's decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Akhu contends the She
evidence did not support the negative credibility finding.
further contends she was denied a fair opportunity to present her case because the immigration judge ordered several continuances. Akhu also contends she was entitled to withholding from removal and withholding under the CAT. We deny the petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It 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." (2000). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)
An applicant can establish refugee status based on past
persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2005). "An applicant who demonstrates
that [s]he was the subject of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution." Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 To establish
F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004) (alteration added).
eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear
- 2 -
probability that, if she was removed to her native country, her "life or freedom would be threatened" on a protected ground. 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). An applicant has the burden of
demonstrating her eligibility for asylum.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2005); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. A
trier of fact who rejects an applicant's testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing so.
Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989).
accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. 367 (4th Cir. 2004). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or Camara, 378 F.3d 361,
withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (2000). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
This court will reverse the Board "only if `the evidence
presented by the petitioner was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.'" Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting
- 3 -
Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We find substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that there was enough evidence supporting the immigration judge's negative credibility finding. Accordingly, the evidence does not
compel a different result with respect to Akhu's application for asylum. We further find Akhu was not denied a fair opportunity to present her case. Akhu agreed to the continuances. Nor did Akhu
attempt to have Chief Taku testify when he was present. "Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3)." Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. Accordingly, Akhu was properly denied
2004) (alteration added). withholding from removal. To obtain relief
establish "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Accordingly, 8 C.F.R.
Akhu failed to make such a showing. we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 4 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 5 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?