Agnes Kalla v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-151-771. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998421122] [10-1250]

Agnes Kalla v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1250 Document: 32

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1250 AGNES MANDJO KALLA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2010 Decided: September 9, 2010

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter T. Ndikum, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Frank M. Johnson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1250 Document: 32

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Agnes Mandjo Kalla, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals judge's ("Board") decision of dismissing denying and her her appeal from the immigration asylum,

applications under

for the

withholding

removal

withholding

Convention

Against Torture ("CAT").

We deny the petition for review.

The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. § 1158(a), (b) (2006). It defines a refugee as 8 U.S.C. a person

unwilling or unable to return to her native country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." "Persecution involves the 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). infliction or threat of death,

torture, or injury to one's person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds[.]" Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d

171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 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) (2010), and can establish

refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. (2010). Without regard to past 2 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) persecution, an alien can

Case: 10-1250 Document: 32

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

Page: 3

establish ground. 2004).

a

well-founded v.

fear

of

persecution F.3d 182,

on

a

protected (4th Cir.

Ngarurih

Ashcroft,

371

187

"Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Gomis v.

Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1048 (2010). For asylum applications filed after the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, a trier of fact, "[c]onsidering 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 (2006). an IJ "[I]n may claim[.]" evaluating rely on 8 an U.S.C. asylum and

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) applicant's

credibility,

omissions

inconsistencies that do not directly relate to the applicant's claim of persecution establish as that long the as the totality is not of the

circumstances

applicant

credible."

Xiu Xia 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 that the new statute abrogates decisions that focus on 3

Case: 10-1250 Document: 32

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

Page: 4

whether the inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant's claim for relief). Credibility evidence. findings are reviewed for substantial

A trier of fact who rejects an applicant's testimony

on credibility grounds must offer a "specific, cogent reason" for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989) "Examples of specific and statements, testimony[.]" contradictory Tewabe v.

(internal quotation marks omitted). cogent reasons and include inconsistent improbable

evidence,

inherently

Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This deference evidence. 2004). to court accords broad, though not by 367 unlimited, substantial (4th Cir.

credibility v.

findings 378

supported F.3d 361,

Camara

Ashcroft,

If the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding

is based on speculation and conjecture rather than specific and cogent reasoning, however, it is not supported by substantial evidence. judge Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538. reject documentary Likewise, "the immigration evidence without specific, Kourouma v.

cannot

cogent reasons why the documents are not credible." Holder, 588 F.3d 234, 241 (4th Cir. 2009). A determination regarding eligibility for

asylum

or

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 4 INS v. Elias-

Case: 10-1250 Document: 32

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

Page: 5

Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Administrative findings of

fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (2006). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

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). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the

adverse credibility finding. past persecution or a

Because Kalla failed to establish fear of persecution, her

well-founded

applications for asylum and withholding of removal were properly denied. for We also conclude Kalla failed to establish eligibility under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(1, 2)

relief

(2010). 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