UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2264
KIRUBALE TEKELE ABERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 13, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan D. Dobson, ALAN DOBSON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michael C. Heyse,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kirubale Tekele Abera, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding from removal, and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Abera challenges the adverse
credibility finding and the denial of relief under the CAT. We
deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act 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 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) (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
2
refugee status based on past persecution in his 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
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004).
The well-founded fear standard contains both a
subjective and an objective component. The objective element
requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a
reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.
2006). “The subjective component can be met through the
presentation of candid, credible, and sincere testimony
demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must
have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be
validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be
mere irrational apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
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).
“Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent
statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable
3
testimony . . . .” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Where, as here, the applicant filed his application
for asylum after May 11, 2005, certain provisions of the REAL ID
Act of 2005 regarding credibility determinations are applicable.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). Specifically,
a trier of fact may base a credibility determination
on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the
applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the
applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency
between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral
statements (whenever made and whether or not under
oath, and considering the circumstances under which
the statements were made), the internal consistency of
each such statement, the consistency of such
statements with other evidence of record (including
the reports of the Department of State on country
conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in
such statements, without regard to whether an
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the
heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant
factor.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
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.
4
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 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.” Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We find that substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding. We have reviewed the record, including the
independent evidence supporting the claim of past persecution,
and find that the record does not compel a different result. We
further find that substantial evidence supports the denial of
relief under the CAT. Abera failed to show that it was more
likely than not he will be tortured when he returns to Ethiopia.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009).
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
5
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
6