Akhu v. Gonzales ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2312
MAURIN NECK MBA AKHU, a/k/a Maurin Awa Che,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-277-136)
Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: September 11, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Philip
S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurin Neck Mba Akhu, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and withholding
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Akhu contends the
evidence did not support the negative credibility finding. She
further contends she was denied a fair opportunity to present her
case because the immigration judge ordered several continuances.
Akhu also contends she was entitled to withholding from removal and
withholding under the CAT. We deny the petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum
on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It 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). 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) (2005). “An applicant who demonstrates
that [s]he was the subject of past persecution is presumed to have
a well-founded fear of persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004) (alteration added). To establish
eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear
- 2 -
probability that, if she was removed to her native country, her
“life or freedom would be threatened” on a protected ground. 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). An applicant has the burden of
demonstrating her eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2005); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999).
Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. A
trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on credibility
grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing so.
Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). This court
accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility
findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara, 378 F.3d 361,
367 (4th Cir. 2004).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive 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. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). 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) (quoting
- 3 -
Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999
(4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
that there was enough evidence supporting the immigration judge’s
negative credibility finding. Accordingly, the evidence does not
compel a different result with respect to Akhu’s application for
asylum.
We further find Akhu was not denied a fair opportunity to
present her case. Akhu agreed to the continuances. Nor did Akhu
attempt to have Chief Taku testify when he was present.
“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal
is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be
proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is
necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004) (alteration added). Accordingly, Akhu was properly denied
withholding from removal.
To obtain relief under the CAT, an applicant must
establish “it is more likely than not that he or she would be
tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Akhu failed to make such a showing.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 4 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 5 -