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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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