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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?