Soghe v. Gonzales , 210 F. App'x 312 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1574
    CLARISSE NZAME SOGHE,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A96-082-436)
    Submitted:   November 3, 2006            Decided:   December 18, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Danielle Beach Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for
    Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A.
    Hunolt, Mark L. Gross, Sarah Canzoniero Blutter, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Petitioner Clarisse Nzame Soghe, an alien with dual
    citizenship in Gabon and the Central African Republic (“CAR”),
    petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
    order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from removal
    and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.             We deny the
    petition for review.
    The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) authorizes
    the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee.                  
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a) (2000).       The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling
    or unable to return to her 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). “Persecution involves
    the infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s
    person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds
    . . . .”          Li v. Gonzales, 
    405 F.3d 171
    , 177 (4th Cir. 2005)
    (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    An applicant can establish refugee status based on past
    persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground.
    
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(1)      (2006).      Without   regard    to   past
    persecution,       an   alien   can   establish     a   well-founded   fear   of
    persecution on a protected ground.             Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
    - 2 -
    182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).        The well-founded fear standard contains
    both a subjective and an objective component.                      The objective
    element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would
    lead a reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
    Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 
    445 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2006).
    “The subjective component can be met through the presentation of
    candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine
    fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the
    reality of the circumstances and be validated with specific,
    concrete   facts    .   .   .     and     it    cannot    be    mere   irrational
    apprehension.”     Li, 
    405 F.3d at 176
     (internal quotation marks and
    citations omitted).
    An   applicant       has   the      burden    of    demonstrating   her
    eligibility for asylum.         
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (a) (2006); Gandziami-
    Mickhou, 
    445 F.3d at 353
    .         A determination regarding eligibility
    for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed 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.A. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B)
    (West 2005).       This court 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.
    - 3 -
    INS, 
    296 F.3d 316
    , 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation
    marks and citations omitted).
    Soghe claimed she was entitled to relief because she
    feared returning to Gabon and possibly being kidnapped by agents
    from the CAR as a result of her father’s involvement in the prior
    government for the CAR.   We find substantial evidence supports the
    immigration   judge’s    finding      that   this   claim     was   entirely
    speculative and without corroborative support.
    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
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1574

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 312

Judges: Williams, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024