Mbecha v. Gonzales , 157 F. App'x 605 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1668
NGEBWUNG ATEM MBECHA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-271-342)
Submitted: November 14, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior
Litigation Counsel, C. Alexander Hewes, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ngebwung Atem Mbecha, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his
applications for asylum and withholding from removal. The INA
authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It defines a refugee as a person
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 political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000).
An applicant can establish refugee status based on past
persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2005). “An applicant who demonstrates
that he was the subject of past persecution is presumed to have a
well-founded fear of persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). This presumption can be rebutted on a
finding of a fundamental change of circumstances so that the alien
no longer has a well-founded fear, or a finding that the alien
could avoid persecution by relocating within the country of
removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), (B) (2005).
Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground.
Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at 187. The well-founded fear of persecution
- 2 -
standard contains both a subjective and an objective component.
“An applicant may satisfy the subjective element by presenting
‘candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine
fear of persecution.’” Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 201-02 (4th Cir.
1999) (quoting Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th
Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The objective
element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would
lead a reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
Huaman-Cornelio v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999
(4th Cir. 1992).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005); Gonahasa v.
INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). Credibility findings,
relevant to the subjective component, are reviewed for substantial
evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on
credibility grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing
so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). We accord
broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings
supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an
alien must show a clear probability that, if he was removed to his
native country, his “life or freedom would be threatened” on a
protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000); see Camara, 378
- 3 -
F.3d at 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A “clear probability” means it is
more likely than not the alien would be subject to persecution.
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). “The burden of proof
is on the applicant for withholding of removal . . . to establish
that his or her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed
country of removal” on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b) (2005). A showing of past threat to life or freedom
on such a ground creates a rebuttable presumption that the threat
would recur upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i); Camara, 378
F.3d at 370. Withholding of removal is mandatory if the alien
meets the standard of proof. Stevic, 467 U.S. at 429-30.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings
of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). We will reverse the Board “only if ‘the evidence presented
was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find
the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,
325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999(internal quotation marks omitted)). We find the evidence was not
so compelling as to warrant reversal.
- 4 -
With respect to the Board’s affirmation of the
immigration judge’s finding regarding the lack of corroborating
information where some should have been available, we find the
evidence does not compel a different result. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)
(2000), as amended by § 101(e) of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L.
No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 305.
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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 5 -