UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1897
YABRE MOYENGA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-271-030)
Submitted: April 21, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacqueline E. Ngole, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yabre Moyenga, a native and citizen of Burkina Faso,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding from removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 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 supported by substantial evidence. Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
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).
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 Moyenga’s due process challenge and his
challenge to the denial of withholding under the CAT, because he
failed to exhaust these issues on appeal to the Board, we decline
to review the issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004); Farrokhi v. INS,
900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990).
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 -