Mengistab Haile v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-628-892. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999791337]. [15-1405]

Appeal: 15-1405

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1405

MENGISTAB ASMELASH HAILE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

February 19, 2016

Decided:

April 8, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leake Fesseha, LAW OFFICE OF LEAKE FESSEHA, Arlington, Virginia,
for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, John B.
Holt, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1405

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Mengistab Asmelash Haile, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(Board)

judge’s

dismissing

decision

withholding

of

his

denying

removal,

Against Torture (CAT).

appeal

his

and

from

the

applications

protection

under

immigration
for

the

asylum,

Convention

We deny the petition for review.

We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for
substantial evidence, “reversing only if the evidence compels a
contrary finding.”

Pastora v. Holder, 737 F.3d 902, 905 (4th

Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012)).
credibility
reasons.

finding

must

be

supported

by

An adverse

specific,

cogent

Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011).

[O]missions, inconsistent statements, contradictory
evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are
appropriate bases for making an adverse credibility
determination.
The existence of only a few such
inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions can be
sufficient
for
the
agency
to
make
an
adverse
credibility determination as to the applicant’s entire
testimony regarding past persecution.
Id. at 273-74 (internal citations omitted).

An inconsistency

can serve as a basis for an adverse credibility determination
even if it does not go to the heart of the alien’s claim.

8

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2012).
We
arguments

have

reviewed

challenging

the
the

record
adverse

2

and

considered

credibility

Haile’s

finding

and

Appeal: 15-1405

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

conclude that the finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The inconsistencies as specified by the Board concern the core
of Haile’s asylum claim.

See Qing Hua Lin v. Holder, 736 F.3d

343, 353 (4th Cir. 2013) (finding alien’s failure to mention
forced

abortion

at

airport

interview

was

“not

a

minor

evidentiary detail whose absence can be overlooked, it [was] the
very core of her claim”); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 122
(4th

Cir.

2007)

underlying [the]

(“Because
claim

for

the

arrests

asylum,

it

are

the

follows

key
that

events
details

surrounding these arrests and the dates on which they occurred
are more than minor or trivial details.”).

We also conclude

that the record does not compel a finding that the record of
sworn

statement

statement

had

Ramsameachire

was

unreliable.

several

v.

The

indicators

Ashcroft,

357

F.3d

typed

of

and

detailed

reliability.

169,

180

(2d

Cir.

See
2004)

(setting forth factors to use to evaluate the reliability of the
airport interview).
We

also

finding

that

documentary
Ilunga v.

conclude
Haile

that
failed

evidence
Holder,

777

to

substantial
to

submit

establish

F.3d

199,

evidence
“adequate
asylum

213

supports

the

independent
eligibility.”

(4th

Cir.

2015).

Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Because Haile’s

challenge to the denial of protection under the CAT relies upon
3

Appeal: 15-1405

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/08/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

us finding error with the agency’s adverse credibility finding,
we

further

conclude

that

substantial

evidence

supports

the

denial of protection under the CAT.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

4