Mohammed v. Mukasey , 284 F. App'x 97 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1822
ISMAIL AHMED MOHAMMED,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 1, 2008 Decided: July 15, 2008
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Thankful T.
Vanderstar, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ismail Ahmed Mohammed, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding him removable and denying his applications
for asylum, withholding from removal, and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Mohammed challenges the
Board’s adverse credibility finding and claims the Board failed to
consider Mohammed’s independent documentary evidence. 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
protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th
Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
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 fact finder 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. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of
Mohammed’s application for asylum, withholding from removal, and
protection under the CAT.
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 -