UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1672

KASSAHUN ASFAW,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: April 13, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, for Petitioner. 

Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Lyle Davis 

Jentzer, Alison Marie Igoe, Senior Counsels for National 

Security, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kassahun Asfaw, 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 

(“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). The IJ found that Asfaw’s testimony was not credible 

and that he was not eligible for asylum or withholding of 

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (2012), and 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (2012). 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) (2012). 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) (2012). An 

applicant for relief from removal bears the burden of 

establishing eligibility for relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) 

(2014); Quitanilla v. Holder, 758 F.3d 570, 579 (4th Cir. 2014). 

When the evidence indicates that there are grounds for the 

mandatory denial of relief, the alien has the burden of proving 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the bar to relief does 

not apply. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); Quitanilla, 758 F.3d at 579. 
3

An alien who is found to have “ordered, incited, assisted, or 

otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on 

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion,” is not eligible 

for asylum or withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)(i). 

We review issues of law de novo and factual issues under 

the substantial evidence standard. Pastora v. Holder, 737 F.3d 

902, 905 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus, adverse credibility findings

are reviewed for substantial evidence. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 

76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). A trier of fact who rejects an 

applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds must offer 

“specific, cogent reason[s]” for doing so. Id. (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 omitted). 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). The IJ may not rely on “‘speculation, conjecture, or an 

otherwise unsupported personal opinion’ to discredit an 

applicant’s testimony or [his] corroborating evidence.” 

Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 601 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 
4

Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538). When the Board adopts and affirms the 

IJ’s decision, and supplements it with its own opinion, as in 

this case, we review both decisions. Cordova v. Holder, 759

F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the adverse 

credibility finding. Asfaw’s testimony was clearly inconsistent 

with statements he made to the asylum officer. We further 

conclude that the IJ did not err by not crediting Asfaw’s 

explanation for the inconsistencies. See Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 

F.3d 921, 930 (4th Cir. 2013).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that 

during Asfaw’s employment with the Ministry of the Interior for 

the Ethiopian government during the Mengistu regime, Asfaw

assisted in the persecution of others. The evidence clearly

indicates that the “persecutor bar” could apply to Asfaw’s 

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Pastora, 

737 F.3d at 906. Our consideration of Asfaw’s testimony and his 

statements to the asylum officer convinces us that Asfaw failed 

to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the persecutor 

bar did not apply to him. Id. We therefore find no error with 

the determination that Asfaw was not statutorily eligible for 

asylum or withholding of removal. 

To qualify for protection under the CAT, an alien bears the 

burden of proof of showing “it is more likely than not that he 
5

or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of 

removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2014). To state a prima 

facie case for relief, an alien must show that he or she will be 

subject 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) (2014); see

Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 246 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2008). 

The applicant need not prove the torture would be inflicted on

account of a protected ground. Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 

113, 116 (4th Cir. 2007). We review for substantial evidence 

the denial of relief under the CAT, id. at 124, and we conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the finding that Asfaw did 

not establish that it was more likely than not that he will be 

tortured if he returns to Ethiopia. 

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