Gao v. Gonzales

Filing 920070524

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1048

JIN QING GAO, a/k/a Chun Chouw, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-354-314)

Submitted:

April 25, 2007

Decided:

May 24, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary J. Yerman, YERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, John P. Devaney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jin Qing Gao, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") order adopting and affirming the immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Gao challenges the adverse credibility finding and the We deny the petition for review.

denial of relief under the CAT.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. § 1158(a) (2000). 8 U.S.C.

The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling

or unable to return to his 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) (2000). An applicant 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) an alien can (2006). establish Without a regard to past of

persecution,

well-founded

fear

persecution on a protected ground. 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). An applicant has the

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d

burden

of

demonstrating

his

eligibility for asylum. Mickhou v. Gonzales,

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th

Gandziami2006).

Cir.

- 2 -

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). specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent

"Examples of statements,

contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony . . . ." Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We accord broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. (4th Cir. 2004). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367

If the immigration judge's adverse credibility

finding is based on speculation and conjecture rather than specific and cogent reasoning, it is not supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538. 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 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (West 2005). 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

This 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." Rusu v.

- 3 -

INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). We find substantial evidence supports the Board's and the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding. The immigration

judge did not err by relying on the fraudulent identity document. Accordingly, the evidence is not so compelling as to warrant a different result as to the denials of asylum and withholding from removal. We further find substantial evidence supports the denial of relief under the CAT. the adverse credibility This denial of relief was supported by finding and the lack of independent

evidence in support of the claim.

Camara, 378 F.3d at 370, 372.

Because he failed to establish his identity, Gao did not show he faced the possibility of torture because he claimed to be a Catholic. Accordingly, 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

- 4 -