Selome Negawo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090707

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2169 SELOME MEGERSA NEGAWO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fitsum Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ali Manuchehry, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Selome Ethiopia, Megersa for Negawo, review of a an native order and of citizen the Board of of the petitions Appeals Immigration ("Board") affirming without opinion immigration judge's order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The INA We deny the petition for review. the Attorney General to confer authorizes asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. 1158(a) (2006). It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to her native country "because on of persecution of or a well-founded religion, fear of persecution account race, nationality, 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 torture, 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. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(a) (2008), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. (2008). Without regard to past 2 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b)(1) persecution, an alien can establish ground. 2004). a well-founded v. fear of persecution F.3d 182, on a protected (4th Cir. a Ngarurih The Ashcroft, fear 371 187 well-founded standard contains both subjective and an objective component. The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in v. like circumstances 445 F.3d can and to fear persecution. (4th Cir. the Gandziami-Mickhou 2006). "The Gonzales, 351, be 353 subjective of candid, component credible, met through presentation sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances 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 she were removed to her native country, her "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 the alien would be subject to persecution. 429-30 (1984). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 3 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 of persecution." Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). For asylum applications filed after the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, a trier of fact, "considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors," may base a credibility determination on any inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood "without regard to whether [it] goes to the heart of the applicant's claim." 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). "[I]n evaluating an asylum applicant's credibility, an IJ may rely on omissions and inconsistencies that do not directly relate to the applicant's claim of persecution as long as the totality of the circumstances establish that the applicant is not credible." Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 4 2008); see also Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that the new statute abrogates decisions that focus on whether the inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant's claim for relief). The immigration judge's order is the final decision for this court's review as a result of the Board's affirmance without opinion. 332 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2003). We find substantial evidence supports the adverse Khattak v. Ashcroft, credibility finding. An immigration judge's assessment of an See Tu Lin v. applicant's demeanor merits "great deference." Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir. 2006); see also SinghKaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999). Under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (2006), "a trier of fact may base a credibility determination of the on the or demeanor, witness, candor, the or responsiveness applicant inherent We plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account . . ." also find the record does not compel a different result with respect to the denial of relief under the CAT. 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 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?