Gorou v. Mukasey , 287 F. App'x 239 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2206
AMAH DEGNE URVILA GOROU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: July 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Carpenter, CARPENTER & CAPT, CHARTERED, Chicago, Illinois,
for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Nancy E. Friedman,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Amah Degne Urvila Gorou, a native and citizen of Cote
d’Ivoire (the Ivory Coast), filed a petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing her appeal
from the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for
asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Gorou abandoned her challenge
to the denial of her asylum application. We deny the petition for
review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) requires
the Attorney General to withhold removal of an alien if the
Attorney General determines “that the alien’s life or freedom would
be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000). To establish
eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear
probability that, if she was removed to her native country, her
“life or freedom would be threatened” on a protected ground. Id.;
see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). “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) (2008). A determination
regarding eligibility for withholding of removal 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).
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.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
that Gorou failed to address the credibility problem with respect
to the date and manner in which she arrived in the United States
raised by her party membership card. The evidence showing that she
arrived earlier than what her testimony suggested calls into
question the remainder of her testimony and letters written in
support of her application. The record does not compel a different
result. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of her
application for withholding from removal.
We also find because of the adverse credibility finding
and Gorou’s lack of objective evidence supporting her claim that it
is more likely than not she will be tortured, the Board did not err
in denying her relief under the CAT.
We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 3 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -