Israel Adamu v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-270-446 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000003385].. [16-1452]

Appeal: 16-1452

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/13/2017

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1452

ISRAEL GIMMUH ADAMU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

December 28, 2016

Decided:

January 13, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, Holly Klein, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW
ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E.
Ginsburg,
Assistant
Director,
Jenny
C.
Lee,
Office
of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1452

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/13/2017

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Israel

Gimmuh

Adamu,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Cameroon,

petitions for review of orders from the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(Board)

judge’s

(IJ)

withholding

dismissing

decision

of

his

denying

removal,

Against Torture (CAT).

and

appeal
his

from

the

applications

protection

under

immigration
for

the

asylum,

Convention

For the reasons set forth below, we deny

the petition for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) vests in the
Attorney

General

the

discretionary

aliens who qualify as refugees.
265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011).
or

unwilling

to

return

power

to

grant

asylum

to

Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d

A refugee is someone “who is unable
to”

his

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.”

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2012).

An asylum applicant has the burden of proving that he satisfies
the definition of a refugee to qualify for relief.
F.3d at 272.

Djadjou, 662

He may satisfy this burden by showing that he was

subjected to past persecution or that he has a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of a protected ground.
§ 208.13(b)(1)

(2016).

If

the

applicant

See 8 C.F.R.

establishes

past

persecution, he has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of a
well-founded fear of persecution.
2

Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272.

Appeal: 16-1452

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/13/2017

Pg: 3 of 6

If the applicant is unable to establish that he was the
victim of past persecution, he must establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution.
600 (4th Cir. 2010).
proof

to

qualify

Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594,

An applicant faces a heightened burden of

for

withholding

of

removal

to

a

particular

country under the INA because he must show a clear probability
of persecution on account of a protected ground.
F.3d at 272.
removal

is

Djadjou, 662

If he meets this heightened burden, withholding of
mandatory.

However,

if

the

applicant

cannot

demonstrate asylum eligibility, his application for withholding
of removal will necessarily fail as well.

Id.

To qualify for protection under the CAT, an applicant bears
the burden of proof of showing “it is more likely than not that
he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2016).

The applicant

need not prove the torture would be inflicted on account of a
protected ground.

Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 115-16 (4th

Cir. 2007).
Because the Board “issued its own opinion without adopting
the

IJ’s

opinion

.

opinion of the IJ.”
Cir. 2014).
manifestly
Djadjou,

.

.

we

review

that

opinion

and

not

the

Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 (4th

We will uphold the Board’s decision unless it is
contrary

662

F.3d

to
at

the
273.

law

and

The
3

an

abuse

standard

of

of

discretion.

review

of

the

Appeal: 16-1452

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/13/2017

Pg: 4 of 6

agency’s findings is narrow and deferential.

Factual findings

are affirmed if supported by “substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole.”

Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 197

(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Substantial

evidence exists to support a finding unless the evidence was
such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled
to conclude to the contrary.

Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 273.

“Even

if the record plausibly could support two results: the one the
IJ chose and the one the petitioner advances, reversal is only
appropriate where the court finds that the evidence not only
supports the opposite conclusion, but compels it.”

Mulyani, 771

F.3d at 197 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Because

the

IJ

did

not

make

an

adverse

credibility

determination in this case, Adamu had “a rebuttable presumption
of

credibility

(2012);

on

Marynenka,

appeal.”
592

F.3d

8
at

U.S.C.

600-01

&

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)
n.*;

see

also

Lin-

Jian v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 191 (4th Cir. 2007) (“When an IJ
is silent on the issue of credibility, it is appropriate to
presume that the applicant testified credibly.”).

Where the

applicant is deemed credible, his testimony “‘may be sufficient
to

sustain

Marynenka,
(2016)).

his
592

burden
F.3d

at

of

proof

without

601

(quoting

8

corroboration.’”

C.F.R.

§ 208.13(a)

“However, even for credible testimony, corroboration

may be required when it is reasonable to expect such proof and
4

Appeal: 16-1452

there

Doc: 25

is

no

(internal

Filed: 01/13/2017

reasonable

quotation

Pg: 5 of 6

explanation

marks

for

omitted).

its

absence.”

“[A]n

asylum

Id.

applicant

should provide documentary support for material facts which are
central to his or her claim and easily subject to verification.
. . . The absence of such corroborating evidence can lead to a
finding

that

proof.”

an

applicant

has

failed

to

meet

his

burden

of

In re J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 263 (B.I.A. 2007)

(internal

quotation

marks

and

brackets

omitted).

Also,

the

applicant’s corroborating evidence may be rejected so long as
the agency provides “specific [and] cogent reasons.”

Djadjou,

662 F.3d at 276.
First, we conclude that the Board properly reviewed the
IJ’s factual findings.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3) (2016).

We

further conclude that Adamu’s applications for relief could be
rejected

due

to

insufficient

corroborating

evidence.

See

Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 276; see also Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d
977, 985 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming the denial of relief because
corroborating
conclude
support

evidence

that
of

specific

the

corroborating

lacked
and

diminished

evidence

and

authenticity).

cogent
weight
that

reasons
given

to

substantial

Finally,

we

were

offered

in

most

of

evidence

Adamu’s
on

the

record considered as a whole supports the Board’s conclusion
that

Adamu

provided

support of his claim.

insufficient

corroborating

evidence

in

Thus, we conclude that the Board did not
5

Appeal: 16-1452

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/13/2017

Pg: 6 of 6

abuse its discretion in finding that Adamu did not establish his
eligibility 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

6