Marius Djidonou v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-692-179. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999790545]. [15-1683]

Appeal: 15-1683

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1683

MARIUS SOUROU DJIDONOU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 7, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Paul
Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1683

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Marius

Sourou

Djidonou,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Benin,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(Board)

judge’s

(IJ)

withholding

dismissing

order

of

denying

removal,

Against Torture (CAT).
“Withholding

of

his

and

appeal

his

from

the

applications

protection

under

immigration
for

the

asylum,

Convention

We deny the petition for review. *
removal

is

available

under

8

U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that h[is] life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of h[is] 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); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2012).
eligible

for

withholding

of

removal,

an

alien

“must

To be
show

a

‘clear probability of persecution’ on account of a protected
ground.”

Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011)

(quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).

“[I]f an

alien establishes eligibility for withholding of removal, the

*

Djidonou does not challenge the finding that he is
statutorily ineligible for asylum.
Thus, he has waived review
of this claim. Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 24849 (4th Cir. 2013) (failing to raise challenge to Board’s ruling
or finding in opening brief waives issue).

2

Appeal: 15-1683

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/07/2016

grant is mandatory.”

Pg: 3 of 5

Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d

351, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2006).
To qualify for protection under the CAT, an alien must show
that

“it

is

more

likely

than

would

be

tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2015).
relief

under

subjected

to

the

CAT,

“severe

an

not

or

he

or

she

To state a prima facie case for

alien

pain

that

must

show

suffering,

that

whether

he

will

be

physical

or

mental . . . by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official

capacity.”

8

C.F.R.

§ 1208.18(a)(1)

(2015);

see

Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 246 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2008).
We

review

factual

findings

for

substantial

evidence,

“reversing only if the evidence compels a contrary finding”;
questions of law we review de novo.
902,

905

(2012)).

(4th

Cir.

Because

2013)

the

(citing

Board

Pastora v. Holder, 737 F.3d
8

U.S.C.

adopted

decision, we review both decisions.

and

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

affirmed

the

IJ’s

See Hernandez-Avalos v.

Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th Cir. 2015).
An adverse credibility determination, as a finding of fact,
we review for substantial evidence, giving broad deference to
the

Board’s

provide

credibility

specific,

determination.

cogent

reasons

for

“[T]he

agency

making

an

must

adverse

credibility determination,” but “[t]he existence of only a few
3

Appeal: 15-1683

[]

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/07/2016

inconsistencies,

Pg: 4 of 5

omissions,

or

contradictions

sufficient” to support such a determination.

can

be

Djadjou, 662 F.3d

at 273-74.
We

note

plausible

that

explanation

inconsistencies.
2013).

the

IJ

“is

not

offered

by

required
an

to

asylum

accept

every

applicant”

for

Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 930 (4th Cir.

Where the record supports two plausible results, one

chosen by the IJ and the other advanced by the alien, reversal
is appropriate only if the record compels the court to accept
the alien’s explanation.
(4th

Cir.

2007).

Here,

Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 511
although

Djidonou

plausibly

asserts

confusion for some of his contradictory testimony, we conclude
that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s credibility finding.
Also,

the

State

Department’s

reports,

which

here

contradict

Djidonou’s testimony as to the political situation in Benin, are
considered
case,”

“highly

probative

evidence

in

a

“will

generally

suffice

to

uphold

and

decision.”

well-founded
the

fear

Board’s

Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 1999).

Even in light of the adverse credibility finding, Djidonou
could

still

independent

be

granted

documentary

relief

if

evidence”

he

to

“presented

establish

adequate

eligibility.

Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 213 (4th Cir. 2015).

Djidonou

“may

body

meet

his

[]

burden

circumstantial evidence.”

by

presenting

Id.

a

consistent

of

We conclude that substantial
4

Appeal: 15-1683

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

evidence

supports

the

evidence

did

sufficiently

not

finding

that

Djidonou’s

rehabilitate

independent

his

discredited

testimony or independently satisfy his burden of proof on either
his withholding claim or his CAT claim.
Djidonou

also

challenges

the

frivolous asylum application.

finding

that

he

filed

a

An alien who “has knowingly made

a frivolous application for asylum,” after having been informed
of the consequences of doing so, is “permanently ineligible” for
immigration benefits.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012).

An asylum

application is frivolous “if any of its material elements is
deliberately fabricated.”
of

the

finding,

severe
the

8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2015).

consequences

preponderance

that
of

the

flow

from

evidence

a

“Because

frivolousness

must

support

an

[IJ’s] finding that the respondent knowingly and deliberately
fabricated material elements of the claim.”
& N. Dec. 151, 157 (B.I.A. 2007).

In re: Y-L-, 24 I.

We conclude that the weight

of the evidence in this case supports the finding that Djidonou
submitted a frivolous asylum application.
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

5