Abebe v. INS ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FASSIL GEBREYES ABEBE,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 98-2152
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A-74-277-635)
Submitted: June 15, 1999
Decided: June 29, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Onyebuchi N. Enechionyia, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. David
W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, David
M. McConnell, Assistant Director, H. Bradford Glassman, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPART-
MENT, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Abebe seeks a review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying relief on his application for asylum and
withholding of deportation. Because we find the Board's decision is
supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney
General, in her discretion, to confer asylum on any refugee. See 8
U.S.C.A. § 1158(a) (West 1999). The Act defines a refugee as a per-
son unwilling or unable to return 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 polit-
ical opinion." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West 1999); M.A. v. INS,
899 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).
The immigration court and the Board found Abebe's testimony
regarding his past persecution and fear of future persecution was not
credible and denied asylum on that basis. We review the credibility
findings of the immigration court and the Board for substantial evi-
dence. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). Substan-
tial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. See Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396,
1398 (9th Cir. 1987). A reviewing court gives credibility determina-
tions substantial deference provided they are supported by "specific,
cogent reason[s]" for the disbelief. Figeroa, 886 F.2d at 78 (quoting
Turcios, 821 F.2d at 1399).
We find that the Board noted sufficient specific and cogent reasons
to uphold the credibility finding of the immigration court. That deter-
mination is entitled to substantial deference. As a result, we find that
the Board's conclusion that Abebe failed to present reliable evidence
sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial
evidence.
2
The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than
that for granting asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-32 (1987). Because Abebe failed to show entitlement to asylum,
he cannot meet the higher standards for withholding deportation.
Finding no error in the Board's's decision, we affirm. We do not
review claims on appeal that were not raised before the Board. See
Tarvand v. INS, 937 F.2d 973, 977 (4th Cir. 1991) (stating that failure
to exhaust administrative remedies precludes appellate review).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3