UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2060

JINGDONG ZHENG,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: February 19, 2010 Decided: March 11, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for 

Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane 

Candaux, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Jingdong Zheng, 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 his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”).*

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 

 * Zheng does not challenge the denial of relief under the 

CAT. He has therefore waived appellate review of this issue. 

See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief 

results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of 

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
3

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 

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). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can 

establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected 

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

2004). “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 [his] life or freedom would be threatened in the country of 

removal because of [his] 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, __ S. 

Ct. __, 2010 WL 58386 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2010) (No. 09-194). “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 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 
4

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).

The REAL ID Act of 2005 also amended the law regarding 

credibility determinations for applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal filed after May 11, 2005, as is the case 

here. Such determinations are to be made based on the totality 

of the circumstances and all relevant factors, including:

the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the 

applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 

applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency 

between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 

statements (whenever made and whether or not under 

oath, and considering the circumstances under which 

the statements were made), the internal consistency of 

each such statement, the consistency of such 

statements with other evidence of record . . . . and 

any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, 

without regard to whether an inconsistency, 

inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the 

applicant’s claim[.] 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006) (emphasis added). 
5

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 evidence on the record considered as a 

whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 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.” Elias-Zacarias, 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. Clearly, there were many critical 

discrepancies between Zheng’s and his wife’s testimonies. We 
6

further find no error with respect to the immigration judge 

seeking more reasonably available corroborative evidence. 

Because of the adverse credibility finding and the lack of 

corroboration, the record does not compel a different result 

with respect to the denial of asylum or withholding of removal. 

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