Mina Khalil v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-123-533 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1678]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MINA ABDELMASEH ABDELSHAHED KHALIL,
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
January 24, 2017
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
Mina Abdelmaseh Abdelshahed Khalil, a native and citizen of
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
For the reasons set forth
below, we deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) vests in the
aliens who qualify as refugees.
265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011).
Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d
A refugee is someone “who is unable
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.
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.
See 8 C.F.R.
persecution, he has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of a
well-founded fear of persecution.
Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272.
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.
specific and concrete facts that a reasonable person in like
circumstances would fear persecution.
An applicant faces a heightened burden of proof to qualify
for withholding of removal to a particular country under the INA
account of a protected ground.
Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272.
application for withholding of removal will necessarily fail as
Because the Board “issued its own opinion without adopting
opinion of the IJ.”
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 (4th
We will uphold the Board’s decision unless it is
agency’s findings is narrow and deferential.
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.”
quotation marks omitted).
An adverse credibility determination, as was made in this
case, must be supported by specific, cogent reasons.
The existence of only a few
determination as to the applicant’s entire testimony regarding
Id. at 273-74.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
evidence was insufficient to support his asylum claim.
Khalil did not show a pattern or practice of persecuting Coptic
Because Khalil did not establish eligibility for
asylum, he is also ineligible for withholding of removal.
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.
See Tiscareno-Garcia v.
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.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?