UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1245
CHRISTOPHER MUBIRU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-238-257)
Submitted: September 6, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Civil
Division, Ellen J. Durkee, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Mubiru, a native and citizen of Uganda,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition.
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) (2006). “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). Without regard to past persecution, an
alien can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a
protected ground. Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at 187. An applicant has the
burden of demonstrating his eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R.
- 2 -
§ 1208.13(a) (2006); 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). “Examples of
specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent statements,
contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony.”
Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). 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).
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 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
omitted).
- 3 -
We find the record does not compel a different result.
The immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding was supported
by substantial evidence. In addition, there was no significant
evidence supporting Mubiru’s contention he would be tortured were
he to return to Uganda.
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
- 4 -