Mina Khalil v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-123-533 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000013851].. [16-1678]

Appeal: 16-1678

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1678

MINA ABDELMASEH ABDELSHAHED KHALIL,
Petitioner,
v.
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 24, 2017

Decided:

January 31, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saher J. Macarius, Audrey Botros, LAW OFFICE OF SAHER J.
MACARIUS, Framingham, Massachusetts, for Petitioner.
Benjamin
C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Linda S.
Wernery, Assistant Director, William C. Minick, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1678

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Mina Abdelmaseh Abdelshahed Khalil, a native and citizen of
Egypt,

petitions

Immigration

for

Appeals

review
(Board)

of

an

order

dismissing

his

of

the

appeal

Board

of

from

the

immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for
asylum,

withholding

of

removal,

and

Convention Against Torture (CAT).

protection

under

the

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: 16-1678

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/31/2017

Pg: 3 of 5

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.

A well-founded fear of persecution

has a subjective and objective component.
592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010).

Marynenka v. Holder,

The subjective component

requires the applicant to show a genuine fear of persecution.
The

objective

component

requires

the

applicant

to

show

with

specific and concrete facts that a reasonable person in like
circumstances would fear persecution.

Id.

An applicant faces a heightened burden of proof to qualify
for withholding of removal to a particular country under the INA
because

he

must

show

a

clear

probability

account of a protected ground.
the

applicant

cannot

of

persecution

Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272.

demonstrate

asylum

eligibility,

on
If
his

application for withholding of removal will necessarily fail as
well.

Id.

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

an

abuse

standard

of

of

discretion.

review

of

the

agency’s findings is narrow and deferential.

Factual findings

are

evidence.

affirmed

if

supported

by
3

substantial

Id.

Appeal: 16-1678

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/31/2017

Pg: 4 of 5

“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.”

Id.

(internal

quotation marks omitted).
An adverse credibility determination, as was made in this
case, must be supported by specific, cogent reasons.
662

F.3d

at

statements,
testimony

273.

We

recognize

contradictory
are

evidence,

appropriate

inconsistencies,

sufficient

for

the

Id.

to

inconsistent

inherently

for

making

improbable
an

adverse

The existence of only a few

omissions,
agency

omissions,

and

reasons

credibility determination.
such

that

Djadjou,

or

make

contradictions
an

adverse

can

be

credibility

determination as to the applicant’s entire testimony regarding
past persecution.

Id. at 273-74.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse

credibility

finding

and

that

Khalil’s

corroborating

evidence was insufficient to support his asylum claim.
conclude

that

substantial

evidence

supports

the

We also

finding

that

Khalil did not show a pattern or practice of persecuting Coptic
Christians.

Because Khalil did not establish eligibility for

asylum, he is also ineligible for withholding of removal.
at 272.

Id.

Because Khalil fails to challenge the Board’s finding

that he waived review of the denial of protection under the CAT,
he has waived review in this court.
4

See Tiscareno-Garcia v.

Appeal: 16-1678

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/31/2017

Pg: 5 of 5

Holder, 780 F.3d 205, 210 (4th Cir. 2015); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
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