UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2379
SERAPHIN TCHEUDIJO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-602-143)
Submitted: May 24, 2006 Decided: June 22, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard S. Bromberg, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD S. BROMBERG,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Seraphin Tcheudijo, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal
and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. Tcheudijo
challenges the negative credibility finding and the immigration
judge’s finding that he was lacking in sufficient corroborative
evidence. 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 can establish refugee status based on past
persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2005). “An applicant who demonstrates
that he was the subject of past persecution is presumed to have a
well-founded fear of persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). To establish eligibility for withholding
of removal, an alien must show a clear probability that, if he was
removed to his native country, his “life or freedom would be
threatened” on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)
(2000); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
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). This court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference
to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara,
378 F.3d at 367.
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
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) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
We find substantial evidence supports the immigration
judge’s findings that Tcheudijo was not credible and he failed to
provide reliable corroborative evidence supporting his claim.
- 3 -
Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a different result with
respect to his application for asylum.*
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
*
We note Tcheudijo has abandoned any challenge to the denial
of withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture.
- 4 -