UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1072
MINGJIE WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 17, 2009 Decided: September 8, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mingjie Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, 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 of removal, 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 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 refugee status based on past persecution in his native
country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1). Without regard to past persecution, an alien
2
can 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 [Board]’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 that substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding in this case. Given that finding and the
4
lack of corroborating evidence, we find that the record does not
compel a different result with respect to the denial of asylum
and withholding of removal. We also find that the record does
not 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