UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1872

GRACE UWAMAHORO,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: June 29, 2016 Decided: July 6, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Goldstein, GOLDSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Acting 

Assistant Director, Andrew N. O’Malley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Grace Uwamahoro, a native and citizen of Rwanda, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) 

order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). Uwamahoro contends that the IJ’s adverse credibility 

finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that she 

was denied due process because of the IJ’s extensive questioning

during the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, we deny 

the petition for review.

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. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of 

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the 

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). Legal issues are 

reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the 

[Board’s] interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality 

Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 

517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). We will reverse the Board 

only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 
3

persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84. Because the 

Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review both 

decisions. Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th 

Cir. 2015).

We review an adverse credibility determination for 

substantial evidence and give “broad deference” to the IJ’s 

credibility determination. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273

(4th Cir. 2011). The IJ “must provide specific, cogent reasons 

for making an adverse credibility determination.” Id. “The 

existence of only a few [] inconsistencies, omissions, or 

contradictions can be sufficient” to support an adverse 

credibility determination as to the alien’s testimony regarding 

past persecution, even if not fundamental to the alien’s claim. 

Id. at 273-74; Singh v. Holder, 699 F.3d 321, 328-29 (4th Cir. 

2012). “An adverse credibility finding is generally fatal to an 

asylum claim unless the alien proves [her] refugee status 

through evidence independent of [her] own testimony.” Hui 

Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 930 (4th Cir. 2013).

We conclude that the adverse credibility finding in this 

case is based on specific and cogent reasons and supported by 

substantial evidence. Several of the inconsistencies concern 

the basis for Uwamahoro’s past persecution claim. We also 

conclude that the record establishes that Uwamahoro did not 
4

submit sufficient corroborating evidence that could rehabilitate 

her testimony. 

Nor was Uwamahoro denied due process due to the IJ’s 

questioning during the merits hearing. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(b)(1) (2012) (“The immigration judge shall . . . 

interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any 

witnesses.”); see Sankoh v. Mukasey, 539 F.3d 456, 467 (7th Cir. 

2008). Uwamahoro failed to show that the hearing was 

fundamentally unfair and that the IJ’s questioning prejudiced 

the outcome of the case. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 

(4th Cir. 2008). Finally, in light of the adverse credibility 

finding, we conclude that the record does not compel a 

conclusion that Uwamahoro demonstrated that she was eligible for 

asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT.

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