Ndole Disue v. Gonzales

Filing 920061219


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1169 JENNET SENGE NDOLE DISUE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-889-047) Submitted: October 25, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Employment Law Group, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, Angela N. Liang, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jennet Cameroon, Senge for Ndole Disue, of a an native order the and of citizen Board of of petitions Appeals review the Immigration (Board) affirming immigration judge's denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Ndole Disue challenges the Board's finding that her testimony was not credible and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We will uphold a negative credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse the Board's decision only if the evidence "was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's decision and find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Ndole Disue failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is Ndole Disue does not challenge on appeal the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find that she has waived appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). - 2 - * on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Similarly, because Ndole Disue does not qualify for asylum, she is ineligible for withholding of removal. 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 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 - 3 -

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?