UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1377
MINU BISTA THAPA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-923-375)
Submitted: October 2, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, CHHETRY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New
York, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Minu Bista Thapa, a native and citizen of Nepal,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”) and denying her motion to remand. 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 her native country on account of a protected ground.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2006). “An applicant who demonstrates
that [s]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. Id. at 187. An applicant has the burden of
demonstrating her eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2006); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
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).
We find the record does not compel a different result.
The Board’s adverse credibility finding was supported by
- 3 -
substantial evidence. In addition, there was no significant
evidence supporting Thapa’s contention she would be tortured were
she to return to Nepal.
Because Thapa did not present new evidence establishing
changed country conditions to the extent that she would be a victim
of persecution, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to remand. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d
400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review).
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 -