UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2523
AMIRA ASSIBI GNON KONDE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-216-078)
Submitted: July 22, 2005 Decided: August 10, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank D. Whitney, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, David J. Cortes, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Amira Assibi Gnon Konde, claiming to be a native and
citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of her 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)
(quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d
995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks 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). We have reviewed the
evidence of record and find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s conclusion that Konde failed to establish
either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Accordingly, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial
of asylum relief.
Konde next challenges the finding that she failed to meet
her burden of proof to qualify for withholding of removal or
- 2 -
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Based on our
review of the record and of the immigration judge’s decision
denying relief, we hold that the immigration judge did not err in
finding that Konde failed to show a “clear probability of
persecution,” or that it is “more likely than not” that she would
face torture if she returned to Togo. See Rusu, 296 F.3d at 324
n.13 (“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of
his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005)
(stating that to qualify for protection under the Convention
Against Torture, an alien must show “it is more likely than not
that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
of removal”).
We reject Konde’s arguments that she was denied due
process at the hearing before the immigration judge. “In order to
prevail on a due process challenge to a deportation or asylum
hearing, an alien must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any
such violation.” Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320. Konde fails to show any
such prejudice.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -