UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1683
MARIUS SOUROU DJIDONOU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: April 7, 2016
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Paul
Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marius Sourou Djidonou, a native and citizen of Benin,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review. *
“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 h[is] life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of h[is] 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); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2012). To be
eligible for withholding of removal, an alien “must show a
‘clear probability of persecution’ on account of a protected
ground.” Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011)
(quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). “[I]f an
alien establishes eligibility for withholding of removal, the
* Djidonou does not challenge the finding that he is
statutorily ineligible for asylum. Thus, he has waived review
of this claim. Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-
49 (4th Cir. 2013) (failing to raise challenge to Board’s ruling
or finding in opening brief waives issue).
2
grant is mandatory.” Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d
351, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2006).
To qualify for protection under the CAT, an alien must show
that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be
tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2015). To state a prima facie case for
relief under the CAT, an alien must show that he will be
subjected to “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental . . . by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2015); see
Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 246 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2008).
We review factual findings for substantial evidence,
“reversing only if the evidence compels a contrary finding”;
questions of law we review de novo. Pastora v. Holder, 737 F.3d
902, 905 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012)). Because the Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s
decision, we review both decisions. See Hernandez-Avalos v.
Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th Cir. 2015).
An adverse credibility determination, as a finding of fact,
we review for substantial evidence, giving broad deference to
the Board’s credibility determination. “[T]he agency must
provide specific, cogent reasons for making an adverse
credibility determination,” but “[t]he existence of only a few
3
[] inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions can be
sufficient” to support such a determination. Djadjou, 662 F.3d
at 273-74.
We note that the IJ “is not required to accept every
plausible explanation offered by an asylum applicant” for
inconsistencies. Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 930 (4th Cir.
2013). Where the record supports two plausible results, one
chosen by the IJ and the other advanced by the alien, reversal
is appropriate only if the record compels the court to accept
the alien’s explanation. Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 511
(4th Cir. 2007). Here, although Djidonou plausibly asserts
confusion for some of his contradictory testimony, we conclude
that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s credibility finding.
Also, the State Department’s reports, which here contradict
Djidonou’s testimony as to the political situation in Benin, are
considered “highly probative evidence in a well-founded fear
case,” and “will generally suffice to uphold the Board’s
decision.” Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 1999).
Even in light of the adverse credibility finding, Djidonou
could still be granted relief if he “presented adequate
independent documentary evidence” to establish eligibility.
Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 213 (4th Cir. 2015). Djidonou
“may meet his [] burden by presenting a consistent body of
circumstantial evidence.” Id. We conclude that substantial
4
evidence supports the finding that Djidonou’s independent
evidence did not sufficiently rehabilitate his discredited
testimony or independently satisfy his burden of proof on either
his withholding claim or his CAT claim.
Djidonou also challenges the finding that he filed a
frivolous asylum application. An alien who “has knowingly made
a frivolous application for asylum,” after having been informed
of the consequences of doing so, is “permanently ineligible” for
immigration benefits. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012). An asylum
application is frivolous “if any of its material elements is
deliberately fabricated.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2015). “Because
of the severe consequences that flow from a frivolousness
finding, the preponderance of the evidence must support an
[IJ’s] finding that the respondent knowingly and deliberately
fabricated material elements of the claim.” In re: Y-L-, 24 I.
& N. Dec. 151, 157 (B.I.A. 2007). We conclude that the weight
of the evidence in this case supports the finding that Djidonou
submitted a frivolous asylum application.
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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
5