Nabintu Mongane v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Filing
920090416
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?