UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1547
KADER CHIKHOUNE; NABYLA LOUHAB CHIKHOUNE,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-083-346; A96-083-357)
Submitted: January 9, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls Church,
Virginia, for Petitioners. Paul J. McNulty, United States
Attorney, Gerard J. Mene, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kader Abdelrehmane Chikhoune and Nabyla Louhab Chikhoune,
natives and citizens of Algeria, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming the immigration
judge’s decision to deny their applications for asylum, withholding
from removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.*
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
*
The Chikhounes do 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).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum 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 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, 979 F.2d at 999 (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.
With respect to the Chikhounes’ due process challenge, we
find they were provided all the process they were due. See Blanco
de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 281 (4th Cir. 2004). The
Chikhounes were able to address the charges against them, present
evidence on their behalf and have the evidence reviewed and a
determination made by an unbiased factfinder.
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 -