UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1472
ALPHA AMADOU BAH,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-562-990)
Submitted: January 22, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew J. Harris, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James A. Frederick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alpha Amadou Bah, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions this Court for review of the Board’s order adopting and
affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his request for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. Bah entered the United States as a non-immigrant
visitor in November 1996 and filed for asylum in 1997. His asylum
application was denied. Bah converted his non-immigrant visa into
a student visa in May 1997. In March 2003, the Department of
Homeland Security served Bah with a Notice to Appear, alleging he
was in violation of Section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, currently codified at 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (2000), for failing to comply with the
conditions of his student visa. Bah conceded the charges and
requested relief from removal in the form of asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the CAT.
An immigration judge denied Bah’s requests for relief
from removal. The judge stated that Bah’s testimony “is incredible
with reference to his [political party] membership, and incredible
with reference to his alleged two arrests, and that he has suffered
past persecution or that anyone is seeking to harm him should he
return to Guinea on account of alleged UNR activities.” The
immigration judge additionally found Bah had not met his burden of
proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the
- 2 -
Convention Against Torture. On appeal, the Board adopted and
affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, finding Bah failed to
demonstrate the immigration judge committed clear error in its
adverse credibility finding.
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).
This court accords broad, but not unlimited, deference to
credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). A trier of fact who
rejects an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds must offer
specific, cogent reasons for the rejection. Figeroa v. INS, 886
F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). This court defers to an immigration
judge’s adverse credibility determination that is “supported by
substantial evidence on the record ‘considered as a whole.’”
Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 278 (4th Cir. 2004)
(citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). “‘If the
[immigration judge’s] adverse credibility finding is not based on
- 3 -
a specific, cogent reason, but, instead is based on speculation,
conjecture, or an otherwise unsupported personal opinion,’ it
cannot be upheld because ‘it will not have been supported by
substantial evidence.’” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 250 (3d Cir.
2003) (en banc)).
Considering the record as a whole, the reasons the
immigration judge provided to support its adverse credibility
finding are not cogent, and the finding is not supported by
substantial evidence. The immigration judge provided several
reasons in support of the adverse credibility determination,
including several reasons identified as “implausibilities,”
however, we conclude none are either cogent or supported by the
record considered as a whole. See Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538.
Because the adverse credibility finding is not supported
by substantial evidence, we grant the petition for review, vacate
the Board’s order, and remand for further proceedings for the
immigration judge to determine, without consideration of the
previous adverse credibility determination, whether Bah can meet
his burden of proving all the elements of his claim to asylum or
other requested relief.
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.
- 4 -
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED
- 5 -