Djoumgoue v. Mukasey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1047
MARCELLIN W. DJOUMGOUE,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jaesa Woods McLin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marcellin W. Djoumgoue, 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”). Djoumgoue claims the Board erred in adopting the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding. He also claims he
submitted substantial evidence entitling him to asylum. In
addition, Djoumgoue challenges the Board’s denial of his motion to
file a brief out of time and his subsequent motion for
reconsideration of the denial. Finding no error, we deny the
petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum
on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It 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)
(2006). “Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one of
the enumerated grounds . . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177
(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
- 2 -
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for
asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006)
(citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008)), and 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). “An applicant
who demonstrates that 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). Without regard to
past persecution, an alien can establish a well-founded fear of
persecution on a protected ground. Id. at 187. The well-founded
fear standard contains both a subjective and an objective
component. The objective element requires a showing of specific,
concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in like
circumstances to fear persecution. Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). “The subjective component can
be met through the presentation of candid, credible, and sincere
testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution. . . . [It]
must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be
validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere
irrational apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation
marks, alterations, and citations omitted).
Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on
credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]” for
- 3 -
doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This court
accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility
findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). If the immigration judge’s
adverse credibility finding is based on speculation and conjecture
rather than specific and cogent reasoning, however, it is not
supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d
533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed 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)
(2006). 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 also Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d
316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We find substantial evidence supports the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility finding. The immigration judge
provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Djoumgoue not
credible and the record does not compel a different result.
- 4 -
We further find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s
order denying Djoumgoue’s request to file a brief out of time.
Insofar as he claimed he was denied due process, we find he failed
to establish any prejudice. See Rusu, 296 F.3d at 324; Farrokhi v.
INS, 900 F.2d 697, 703 n.7 (4th Cir. 1990). Despite Djoumgoue’s
failure to file a timely brief, the Board reviewed the merits of
the appeal. Djoumgoue failed to indicate what issues were ignored
because the Board did not have his brief.
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
- 5 -