UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1420
NABINTU AURELE MONGANE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-1929
NABINTU AURELE MONGANE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 5, 2009 Decided: April 16, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions, Nabintu Aurele
Mongane, a native and citizen of the Congo, seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing her
appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding her
removable and denying her applications for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the order denying her
motion for reconsideration. We deny the petitions for review.
To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner
bears the burden of demonstrating that “it is more likely than
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
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) (2006). 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.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992); see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th
Cir. 2002).
Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony
on credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]”
for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989).
3
“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 quotation marks and citations omitted).
Contradictory evidence may support an adverse credibility
finding even if the alien offers a plausible explanation.
Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 121-22 (4th Cir. 2007). This
court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to
credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara
v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). If the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding is based on
speculation and conjecture rather than specific and cogent
reasoning, however, it is not supported by substantial evidence.
Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538. Even in light of an adverse
credibility finding, the immigration judge must still determine
if independent evidence supports the alien’s claim. Camara, 378
F.3d at 371-72.
We find no abuse of discretion. The adverse
credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and the
record does not compel a contrary finding. We also note that
there was a lack of independent evidence showing that it was
more likely than not Mongane will be tortured if she returns to
the Congo.
4
Mongane also claims she was denied due process. To
succeed on a due process claim in an asylum proceeding, the
alien must establish two closely linked elements: (1) that a
defect in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and
(2) that the defect prejudiced the outcome of the case. Anim v.
Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Rusu, 296
F.3d at 320-22, 324). Mongane failed to show the proceeding
before the immigration judge or on appeal was fundamentally
unfair. In light of the adverse credibility finding and the
lack of independent evidence supporting her claim, she failed to
show she was prejudiced by any alleged defect in the proceeding.
We deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
5