UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL ODURO,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 97-2443

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A70-850-222)

Submitted: August 11, 1998

Decided: August 31, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eric R. Bowman, Langley Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant

Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,

Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Oduro, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of a final

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Immigration

Judge (IJ) found Oduro's application and testimony incredible and

denied his application. The IJ ordered Oduro deported as charged

under § 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(I)(I) (West Supp. 1998). The Board dismissed

Oduro's appeal, upholding the IJ's credibility determination. Because

substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we deny the petition.

Oduro claimed that he left Ghana as a result of the violent end of

a political rally. In Oduro's view, because he organized the demonstration, the Government forces who broke up the rally would also

seek him out and harm him. Oduro claimed to have fled Ghana under

the cover of night to neighboring Togo, where he secured passage on

a slow boat to somewhere in Europe. When he was forced to disembark, he did not know where he was, but was guided by a stranger

from his boat trip to a nearby town. On his walk to the town, Oduro

found a United States passport and decided to come to America. A

stranger named Roberto helped Oduro by hiding him in a small, dark

room for two or three months until Oduro could leave with the ticket

to the United States that Roberto had procured for him.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney

General, in her discretion, to confer asylum on any refugee. See 8

U.S.C.A. § 1158(a) (West Supp. 1998). The Act 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.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West Supp. 1998);

 2
see also M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc). The

"well-founded fear of persecution" standard contains both a subjective

and an objective component. An applicant may satisfy the subjective

element by presenting "`candid, credible, and sincere testimony' demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution." Berroteran-Melendez v.

INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting BlancoComarribas v. INS, 830 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1987)).

In this case, the IJ and the Board found that Oduro's testimony

regarding his fear of prosecution and his escape from Ghana was not

credible and denied asylum on that basis. We review the credibility

findings of the IJ and the Board for substantial evidence. See Figeroa

v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Turcios v. INS, 821

F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1987); Saballo-Cortez v. INS, 761 F.2d

1259, 1262 (9th Cir. 1984)). Substantial evidence is evidence that a

reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

See Turcios, 821 F.2d at 1398. A reviewing court gives credibility

determinations substantial deference provided they are supported by

"specific, cogent reason[s]" for the disbelief. Figeroa, 886 F.2d at 78

(quoting Turcios, 821 F.2d at 1399).

The Board offered numerous reasons for discounting Oduro's testimony. The Board determined that there were material discrepancies

between Oduro's written application for asylum and his oral testimony in Immigration Court. The discrepancies the Board identified

included Oduro's description of his role in the opposition political

party in Ghana and his account of the events at the ill-fated political

rally where Oduro decided that it was necessary to leave Ghana. Further, Oduro mentioned in his written application that he believed his

family was in danger as a result of his flight from Ghana, but failed

to mention that significant fact in his oral testimony. In addition, the

Board noted that the vague nature and implausibility of Oduro's

account of his voyage to the United States further eroded his credibility. We find that these are sufficiently specific and cogent reasons for

the Board to uphold the credibility finding of the IJ. Accordingly, the

determination is entitled to substantial deference. As a result, we find

that the Board's conclusion that Oduro failed to establish the subjective portion of his "fear of prosecution" is supported by substantial

evidence.

 3
In his brief on appeal, Oduro primarily contends that his written

application and oral testimony were not necessarily inconsistent and

can be reconciled with one another through a little explaining. However, Oduro's contention mistakes the scope of this court's review of

the Board's decision. Because we find that the Board's credibility

determination was supported by sufficient reasoning, we will not

delve into all of the possible interpretations of Oduro's testimony.

Oduro cites Nasseri v. Moschorak, 34 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 1994),

overruled on other grounds by Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th

Cir. 1996), in support of his claim that the Board's credibility determination was not supported by sufficient reasoning. In Nasseri, however, the Ninth Circuit specifically noted that inconsistencies between

the application and oral testimony, such as those noted by the Board

in this case, were appropriate factors on which to base a credibility

finding. See id. at 726. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit reversed when the

Board found Nasseri incredible, not because of her demeanor in presenting her oral testimony, but because of the Board's unsupported

analysis of the political situation in Afghanistan. See id. There is no

such "faulty logic" in this case. Id.

Finding no error to the Board's decision, we deny Oduro's 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

 4