Yang Zhen Qui v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1983
YANG ZHEN QUI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-289-457)
Submitted: May 4, 2007 Decided: May 25, 2007
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fengling Liu, LAW OFFICE OF FENGLING LIU, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Margaret K. Taylor, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yang Zhen Qui, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order adopting and affirming the immigration
judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding
from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Qui challenges the adverse credibility finding. We deny
the petition for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2000). The INA 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) (2006). Without regard to past
persecution, an alien can establish a well-founded fear of
persecution on a protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating her
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006).
- 2 -
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). “Examples of
specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent statements,
contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony
. . . .” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We accord 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, it is not supported by substantial evidence.
Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538.
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.A. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(West 2005). We 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.” Rusu v. INS, 296
- 3 -
F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s and the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding. Accordingly, the
evidence is not so compelling as to warrant a different result as
to the denials of asylum and withholding from removal.
We further find substantial evidence supports the denial
of relief under the CAT. This denial of relief was supported by
the adverse credibility finding and the lack of independent
evidence in support of the claim. Camara, 378 F.3d at 370, 372.
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 -