UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1047

MARCELLIN W. DJOUMGOUE,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. 

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.,

for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,

John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jaesa Woods McLin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Marcellin W. Djoumgoue, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

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 from

removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). Djoumgoue claims the Board erred in adopting the

immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding. He also claims he

submitted substantial evidence entitling him to asylum. In

addition, Djoumgoue challenges the Board’s denial of his motion to

file a brief out of time and his subsequent motion for

reconsideration of the denial. Finding no error, we deny the

petition for review. 

The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum

on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (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).
- 3 -

An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for

asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006)

(citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008)), 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). “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. at 187. The well-founded

fear standard contains both a subjective and an objective

component. The objective element requires a showing of specific,

concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in like

circumstances to fear persecution. Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales,

445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). “The subjective component can

be met through the presentation of candid, credible, and sincere

testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution. . . . [It]

must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be

validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere

irrational apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation

marks, alterations, and citations omitted).

Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial

evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on

credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]” for
- 4 -

doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 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 v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d

533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006). 

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 also Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d

316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).

We find substantial evidence supports the immigration

judge’s adverse credibility finding. The immigration judge

provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Djoumgoue not

credible and the record does not compel a different result. 
- 5 -

We further find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s

order denying Djoumgoue’s request to file a brief out of time.

Insofar as he claimed he was denied due process, we find he failed

to establish any prejudice. See Rusu, 296 F.3d at 324; Farrokhi v.

INS, 900 F.2d 697, 703 n.7 (4th Cir. 1990). Despite Djoumgoue’s

failure to file a timely brief, the Board reviewed the merits of

the appeal. Djoumgoue failed to indicate what issues were ignored

because the Board did not have his brief.

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