UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1155

RUO MEI WU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 18, 2010 Decided: April 9, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony 

West, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Gregory M. Kelch, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ruo Mei Wu, 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 her appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, 

withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). Finding substantial evidence supports 

the adverse credibility finding and the record does not compel a 

different result, 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 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 
3

refugee status based on past persecution in his native country 

on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) 

(2009). “An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject 

of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of 

persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 

2004). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can 

establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected 

ground. Id. A well-founded fear of persecution in the absence 

of past persecution has both subjective and objective 

components, meaning that the applicant is subjectively afraid 

and that the fear is objectively well-founded. A claim based on 

past persecution, however, does not require the applicant to 

show he or she subjectively fears persecution in the country of 

origin. Lin-Jian v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 188 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“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), cert. denied, 130 S. 

Ct. 1048 (2010). “This is a more stringent standard than that 

for asylum . . . . [and], while asylum is discretionary, if an 

alien establishes eligibility for withholding of removal, the 
4

grant is mandatory.” Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 

351, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted)

(alteration added). 

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 citations 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 
5

evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 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). 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.” EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Because the Board added its own reasoning 

when it adopted the immigration judge’s decision, this court

will review both decisions. Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 

511 n.8 (4th Cir. 2007).

We find substantial evidence supports the adverse 

credibility finding as it related to the subjective component of 

Wu’s claim that she had a well-founded fear of persecution. In 

addition, we find substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

finding that Wu did not show any likelihood that she or 

similarly situated Chinese will be persecuted in Fujian Province 

as a result of the birth of children in the United States. We 

will not review Wu’s claim that the immigration judge’s finding 

that her statements made during the 2001 credible fear interview 

were not made under duress or under an immediate fear was 

without support in the record because she did not raise this 

claim on appeal to the Board. See Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 
6

631, 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 736 

(2009). We also note Wu does not challenge the denial of relief 

under the CAT, which was determined notwithstanding the adverse 

credibility finding. Therefore, the claim is abandoned. See

Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001).

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