Pafe v. Mukasey , 277 F. App'x 311 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2045
DIANE WAMENYI PAFE,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-730-167)
Submitted: April 23, 2008 Decided: May 13, 2008
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Neufville, III, THE MORAIS NEUFVILLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Shahrzad Baghai, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Diane Wamenyi Pafe, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding her removable and denying her applications
for asylum, withholding from removal, and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Pafe challenges the Board’s
adverse credibility finding.* 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) (2007). Without regard to past persecution, an
alien can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a
*
Although Pafe makes passing reference to it in her brief, she
does not present any substantive argument challenging the Board’s
affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of withholding of
removal or protection under the CAT. Accordingly, those claims
have been abandoned. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d
231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
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) (2007); Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). A
determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if
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 by the
petitioner 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 find sufficient evidence supports the Board’s adverse
credibility finding and the record does not compel a different
result. Therefore, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of
Pafe’s application for asylum.
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
- 3 -