Grace Uwamahoro v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-683-055 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999879392].. [15-1872]

Appeal: 15-1872

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1872

GRACE UWAMAHORO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

June 29, 2016

Decided:

July 6, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Goldstein, GOLDSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Acting
Assistant Director, Andrew N. O’Malley, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1872

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Grace Uwamahoro, a native and citizen of Rwanda, petitions
for

review

of

an

order

of

the

Board

of

Immigration

Appeals

(Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ)
order

denying

her

applications

protection

under

for

the

asylum,

Convention

withholding
Against

of

removal,

and

Torture

(CAT).

Uwamahoro contends that the IJ’s adverse credibility

finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that she
was denied due process because of the IJ’s extensive questioning
during the hearing.

For the reasons set forth below, we deny

the petition for review.
A

determination

regarding

eligibility

for

asylum

or

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

INS v. Elias-

Administrative findings of

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary.
reviewed
[Board’s]

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
de

novo,

“affording

interpretation

of

appropriate

the

Legal issues are
deference

[Immigration

and

to

the

Nationality

Act] and any attendant regulations.”

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,

517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

We will reverse the Board

only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
2

Appeal: 15-1872

Doc: 30

persecution.”

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84.

Because the

Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review both
decisions.

Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th

Cir. 2015).
We

review

substantial

an

adverse

evidence

and

give

credibility determination.
(4th Cir. 2011).

credibility
“broad

determination

deference”

to

of

contradictions

IJ’s

Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273

The IJ “must provide specific, cogent reasons

for making an adverse credibility determination.”
existence

the

for

only

a

can

few

be

[]

inconsistencies,

sufficient”

to

Id.

“The

omissions,

support

an

or

adverse

credibility determination as to the alien’s testimony regarding
past persecution, even if not fundamental to the alien’s claim.
Id. at 273-74; Singh v. Holder, 699 F.3d 321, 328-29 (4th Cir.
2012).

“An adverse credibility finding is generally fatal to an

asylum

claim

through

unless

evidence

the

alien

independent

of

proves
[her]

[her]
own

refugee

status

testimony.”

Hui

Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 930 (4th Cir. 2013).
We conclude that the adverse credibility finding in this
case is based on specific and cogent reasons and supported by
substantial evidence.
the

basis

conclude

for

that

Several of the inconsistencies concern

Uwamahoro’s
the

record

past

persecution

establishes

3

that

claim.
Uwamahoro

We
did

also
not

Appeal: 15-1872

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

submit sufficient corroborating evidence that could rehabilitate
her testimony.
Nor

was

questioning

Uwamahoro
during

denied

the

due

merits

process

due

hearing.

to

See

§ 1229a(b)(1)

(2012)

(“The

immigration

judge

interrogate,

examine,

and

cross-examine

the

the
8

shall
alien

IJ’s

U.S.C.
.

.

and

.
any

witnesses.”); see Sankoh v. Mukasey, 539 F.3d 456, 467 (7th Cir.
2008).

Uwamahoro

failed

to

show

that

the

hearing

was

fundamentally unfair and that the IJ’s questioning prejudiced
the outcome of the case.
(4th Cir. 2008).
finding,

we

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256

Finally, in light of the adverse credibility

conclude

that

the

record

does

not

compel

a

conclusion that Uwamahoro demonstrated that she was eligible for
asylum, withholding of removal, or 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