UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1248
CHRISTINE BOATENG-WALKER,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 19, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Jennifer Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Monica G.
Antoun, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christine Boateng-Walker, a native and citizen of
Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of her request for withholding of removal. “To qualify
for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he
faces a clear probability of persecution because of [her] race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th
Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)); see
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2010).
Boateng-Walker challenges the determination that her testimony
was not credible, and that she otherwise failed to meet her
burden of proof for withholding of removal.
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). We accord broad,
though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings
supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). We will uphold the final agency
determination if it is “not manifestly contrary to law.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on our review of the record and the decisions of
both the immigration judge and the Board, we conclude that
2
substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that
Boateng-Walker failed to establish her entitlement to
withholding of removal. We therefore 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
3