UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2295
SENTAYEHU DEGEFA MAMO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 21, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010
Before KING, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Jennifer Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristin A.
Moresi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sentayehu Degefa Mamo, 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 of removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a), (b) (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 citation
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) (2010), 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)
2
(2010). 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).
“Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1048 (2010).
For asylum applications filed after the passage of the
REAL ID Act of 2005, a trier of fact, “[c]onsidering the
totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” may
base 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 IJ may rely on omissions and
inconsistencies that do not directly relate to the applicant’s
claim of 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).
3
Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony
on credibility grounds must offer a “specific, cogent reason”
for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “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 citation omitted). Likewise, “the immigration judge
cannot reject documentary evidence without specific, cogent
reasons why the documents are not credible.” Kourouma v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 234, 241 (4th Cir. 2009).
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.
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
4
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). “When, as here, the BIA does not
expressly adopt any portion of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
decision, we review only the findings and order of the BIA, not
those of the IJ.” Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 687 (4th Cir.
2008).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding, which was based on discrepancies
noted by the immigration judge and discussed by the Board. *
Accordingly, we hold that the record does not compel a different
result with respect to the denial of asylum or withholding of
removal.
We deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
We will not review that portion of the Board’s order
denying relief under the Convention Against Torture because Mamo
abandoned review by not raising a challenge to the denial in his
brief. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 (4th Cir. 1999).
5
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
6