Mingjie Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MINGJIE WANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
August 17, 2009
September 8, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Mingjie Wang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's order denying his 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
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 see 8 v. Gonzales, § 455 F.3d 484, and 486 can
(4th Cir. 2006);
establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.
Without regard to past persecution, an alien 2
can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground. Ngarurih A v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 for
(4th Cir. 2004).
asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). findings of fact, including findings on
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. Legal issues are reviewed 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). de novo, "affording appropriate
deference to the [Board]'s interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations." (4th Cir. 2008). Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92
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
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). An determination immigration on any judge may make a credibility or falsehood
"without regard to whether [it] . . . goes to the heart of the applicant's "[I]n claim." an 8 U.S.C. asylum § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). an
[immigration judge] may rely on omissions and inconsistencies that do not directly relate 3 to the applicant's claim of
establish that the applicant is not credible."
Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting on that the new the
inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant's claim for relief). This substantial applicant's "specific, court reviews A on trier credibility of fact findings who rejects must v. for an
evidence. testimony cogent
credibility for doing
886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). cogent reasons include inconsistent
"Examples of specific and statements, contradictory Tewabe
evidence, and inherently improbable testimony . . . ." v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006)
broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). credibility finding is Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
If the immigration judge's adverse on speculation and conjecture
rather than specific and cogent reasoning, however, it is not supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538.
We find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding in this case. 4 Given that finding and the
lack of corroborating evidence, we find that the record does not compel a different result with respect to the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We also find that 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
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?