Mingjie Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090908

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1072

MINGJIE WANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

August 17, 2009

Decided:

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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 his 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 see 8 v. Gonzales, § 455 F.3d 484, and 486 can

(4th Cir. 2006);

C.F.R.

1208.13(a)

(2009),

establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(1).

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).

determination

regarding

eligibility

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

Administrative are

credibility,

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

persecution."

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

inconsistency,

inaccuracy,

"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

evaluating

applicant's

credibility,

[immigration judge] may rely on omissions and inconsistencies that do not directly relate 3 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. 2008); see also Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting on that the new the

statute

abrogates

decisions

that

focus

whether

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

grounds so.

offer INS,

reason[s]"

Figeroa

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)

(internal accords

quotation

marks

and

citations

omitted).

This

court

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

based

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

argument

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

5