UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1743
NERMINE MORCOS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-381-113)
Submitted: January 9, 2006 Decided: February 15, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Barnett, FRENKEL, HERSHKOWITZ & SHAFRAN, L.L.P., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, Scott A.
Chutka, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nermine Morcos, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order
dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying
her application 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 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 has the burden of demonstrating her
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
*
Morcos does not challenge the denial of withholding from
removal or 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 evidence was not so compelling as to
warrant reversal.
With respect to Morcos’ motion to remand, we find the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
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 -