Ngalla v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1785
AZHIEH DONALD NGALLA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-095-035)
Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: February 7, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jonathan
S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Frances C. Trapp, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Azhieh Donald Ngalla, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision to
deny his applications for asylum and withholding from removal.* 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 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 has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005); Gonahasa v.
INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). Credibility findings,
relevant to the subjective component, 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). We accord
broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings
*
Ngalla does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
- 2 -
supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an
alien must show a clear probability that, if he was removed to his
native country, his “life or freedom would be threatened” on a
protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000); see Camara, 378
F.3d at 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A “clear probability” means it is
more likely than not the alien would be subject to persecution.
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). “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) (2005). A showing of past threat to life or freedom
on such a ground creates a rebuttable presumption that the threat
would recur upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(I); Camara, 378
F.3d at 370. Withholding of removal is mandatory if the alien
meets the standard of proof. Stevic, 467 U.S. at 429-30.
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). We will reverse the Board “only if ‘the evidence presented
- 3 -
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 Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of
Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992)(internal
quotation marks omitted)). We find the immigration judge’s
negative credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.
We further find the evidence was not so compelling as to warrant
reversal.
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 -