Nken v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1784
JEAN MARC NKEN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-223-548)
Submitted: February 21, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kathryn L.
Moore, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jean Marc Nken, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). He also seeks review of the denial of his motion to
remand. 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 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)
(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 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). A
determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if
- 2 -
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 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. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports both the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding and its ultimate
findings that Nken is ineligible for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the CAT. Accordingly, we will not
disturb the Board’s final order affirming the immigration judge’s
decision.
We also conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion
denying Nken’s motion to file a brief out of time. With respect to
the motion to remand, because Nken did not show that a visa was
immediately available to him and the Government opposed the motion,
we find the Board did not abuse its discretion denying the motion.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2000); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231
(4th Cir. 1998); Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253(B.I.A. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -