UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2056
CALECHE NJWENG BONGO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Celestine Tatung, AMITY, KUM & SULEMAN, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Ada E. Bosque,
Yamileth G. HandUber, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Caleche Njweng Bongo, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, 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 and withholding under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer
asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It defines a
refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to her 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) (2006). “Persecution involves the
infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s
person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds.
. . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2009), and 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)
(2009). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
2
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed 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, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s
interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations.”
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). 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.” Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
An immigration judge may make a credibility
determination on any inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
“without regard to whether [it] . . . goes to the heart of the
applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006).
“[I]n evaluating an asylum applicant’s credibility, an
[immigration judge] may rely on omissions and inconsistencies
that do not directly relate to the applicant’s claim of
3
persecution as long as the totality of the circumstances
establish that the applicant is not credible.” Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Mitondo v. Mukasey,
523 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that the new
statute abrogates decisions that focus on whether the
inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant’s
claim for relief).
This court reviews credibility findings 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). “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). 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.
We find substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding. Given that finding and the lack of
4
corroborating evidence, we find the record does not compel a
different result with respect to the denial of asylum and
withholding from removal. We also find the record does compel a
different result with respect to the denial of relief under the
CAT.
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
5