Charles Brunal v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES DAVID SEGUNDO BRUNAL; SANDRA MARGARITA FERNANDEZ; CARLOS ANDREA BRUNAL; CAROLINA MARIA BRUNAL, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
March 20, 2009
April 29, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christine Lockhart Poarch, THE POARCH LAW FIRM, PC, Salem, Virginia, for Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Charles David Segundo Brunal ("Brunal"), the lead
Petitioner, and his wife, Sandra Margarita Fernandez, and his children, Carlos and Carolina Brunal, are natives and citizens of Columbia. They petition for review of orders of the Board of
Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge's order denying their applications for asylum, withholding Against of removal and withholding motion under to the Convention and after
remand from this court, affirming the prior orders. petition for review. The INA authorizes the Attorney General
We deny the
asylum on any refugee.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006).
It defines a
refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country "because on of persecution of or a well-founded religion, fear of
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). infliction or threat of death, "Persecution involves the or injury to one's
person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds. . . ." Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). An alien "bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for asylum," Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground. (2008). 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
"An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject
of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution." 2004). Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
This presumption can be rebutted on a finding of a
fundamental change of circumstances so that the alien no longer has a well-founded fear, or a finding that the alien could avoid persecution C.F.R. § by relocating within the country "The of removal. bears 8 the
burden of proof for rebutting the presumption." F.3d at 486. Without establish ground. a regard to past of at persecution, persecution 187. The an on
standard contains both a subjective and an objective component. The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution. Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d "The subjective component can be met of candid, credible, and sincere
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). through the presentation
testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances 3
and be validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension." Li, 405 F.3d at 176
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear probability that, if he was removed to his native country, his "life or freedom would be threatened" on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); see A "clear
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004).
probability" means that it is more likely than not that the alien would be subject to persecution. 407, 429-30 (1984). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S.
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias-
Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, "affording appropriate deference to the BIA's interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations." This . . .
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). court will reverse the Board only if "the evidence
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear 4 of persecution." Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). We find substantial evidence supports the finding that Brunal failed to show past persecution, that Brunal did not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political
opinion, having a political opinion imputed to him or on account of any membership in a particular social group, or that it was not more likely than not he will be tortured if he returned to Columbia. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?