Nabintu Mongane v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090416

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1420 NABINTU AURELE MONGANE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-1929 NABINTU AURELE MONGANE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 5, 2009 Decided: April 16, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions, Nabintu Aurele Mongane, a native and citizen of the Congo, seeks review of the Board appeal of Immigration the Appeals' ("Board") judge's order dismissing finding under her her the from and immigration her decision for removable denying applications relief Convention Against Torture ("CAT") and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. We deny the petitions for review. To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." findings 8 of would C.F.R. fact be are 1208.16(c)(2) conclusive to (2008). any the Administrative reasonable contrary. unless to adjudicator compelled decide 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). 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." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Credibility evidence. findings are reviewed for substantial 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). 3 "Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony . . . ." Cir. 2006) Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th quotation may alien marks and an a citations adverse omitted). (internal Contradictory finding even evidence if the support offers credibility explanation. This to plausible Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 121-22 (4th Cir. 2007). court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). is Camara If the on immigration speculation judge's and adverse credibility rather than finding specific based conjecture and cogent reasoning, however, it is not supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538. Even in light of an adverse credibility finding, the immigration judge must still determine if independent evidence supports the alien's claim. F.3d at 371-72. We find no abuse of discretion. The adverse Camara, 378 credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and the record does not compel a contrary finding. We also note that there was a lack of independent evidence showing that it was more likely than not Mongane will be tortured if she returns to the Congo. 4 Mongane also claims she was denied due process. To succeed on a due process claim in an asylum proceeding, the alien must establish two closely linked elements: (1) that a defect in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that the defect prejudiced the outcome of the case. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320-22, 324). before unfair. the immigration Mongane failed to show the proceeding judge or on appeal was fundamentally In light of the adverse credibility finding and the lack of independent evidence supporting her claim, she failed to show she was prejudiced by any alleged defect in the proceeding. We deny the petitions for review. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and adequately presented materials argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 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?