Tchlalou Hiator v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090320

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1293

TCHLALOU AKOUVI HIATOR, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

February 25, 2009

Decided:

March 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph M. Kum, AMITY, KUM & SULEMAN, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Andrew B. Insenga, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tchlalou Akouvi Hiator, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals'

("Board") order affirming the immigration judge's order denying her application under for the asylum, withholding Against of removal, and

protection

Convention

Torture.

Hiator

challenges the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. For the reasons set forth below, we

deny the petition for review. We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, only 538 if (4th the Cir. 2006), "was and so reverse the Board's that no

decision

evidence

compelling

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). Having reviewed the administrative record and the

Board's decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling that Hiator failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as

necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.

See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(I), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8 2

C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (same). compel denial a of different Hiator's result, we

Because the record does not not disturb the Board's of

will for

application

asylum,

withholding

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

argument

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3