UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2068
SATURNIN ALBAN CYRILLE YADAMA-GBEBRY,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-216-256)
Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Ralph Andrew Price, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Saturnin Alban Cyrille Yadama Gbebry, a native and
citizen of the Central African Republic (“CAR”), petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order
affirming and adopting the immigration judge’s decision denying
asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture. Gbebry also challenges the Board’s
decision denying the motion to remand to consider an application
for adjustment of status. We deny the petition for review.
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). This court
accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility
findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal 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
- 2 -
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). This court will reverse the Board “only if ‘the evidence
presented by the petitioner 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 with respect to Gbebry’s applications for
relief, the evidence does not compel a different result. We
further find the Board properly denied the motion to remand.
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 -