Umboh v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1673
FERRY UMBOH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-291-329)
Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: February 6, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Larry D. Adams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ferry Umboh, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) affirming the ruling of the immigration judge finding Umboh
removable and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* We
deny the petition for review.
We will reverse a determination denying eligibility for
asylum “only if the evidence presented 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 quotations 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 reasons for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th
Cir. 1989). The immigration judge did so in this case. Therefore,
substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Umboh did not
sustain the burden of proving himself eligible for asylum. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (holding a determination
regarding eligibility for asylum is conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole).
*
Umboh does not challenge the Board’s denial of his
applications for withholding of removal or protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Therefore, these claims are abandoned.
See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 2 -
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 -