Romodan Esmael v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1328
ROMODAN BEKIT ESMAEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 9, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Garfield, GARFIELD LAW GROUP, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin A. Moresi,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Romodan Bekit Esmael, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board’s”) order dismissing his appeal of the immigration
judge’s (“IJ’s”) order denying Esmael’s affirmative application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have thoroughly examined
the record and deny the petition for review.
When assessing an alien’s petition for review, we must
uphold the Board’s determination that an alien is not eligible
for asylum or withholding of removal unless the Board’s
determination is “‘manifestly contrary to [the] law and an abuse
of discretion.’” Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 396 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). Legal
questions determined by the Board are reviewed de novo, see Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), while
the Board’s factual findings “are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); Crespin-
Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011). In
other words, the Board’s determination regarding eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal will be affirmed if it is
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
2
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee.
8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(a) (West 2005 & Supp. 2012). 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). An applicant for asylum
“bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for asylum” based on
refugee status. Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2011).
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s opinion,
and we conclude that the Board’s determination is without legal
error and is supported by substantial evidence. While we
appreciate the apparent sincerity of Esmael’s fears of future
persecution, we are constrained to conclude that the record
would not compel every reasonable adjudicator to find Esmael’s
apprehensions well-founded. See Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at
124. Because it is not our task to weigh the evidence anew or
to substitute our judgment for that of the Board, we must defer
to the Board’s dismissal of Esmael’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 190
(4th Cir. 2004); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004). We likewise conclude that the Board did not reversibly
3
err in denying Esmael protection under the CAT. See Lin-Jian v.
Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Finally, we note
that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Esmael’s
motion to remand, given Esmael’s failure to demonstrate that he
could not have submitted the proferred evidence prior to the
hearing before the IJ. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153,
155 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting standard of review).
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
4