Case Name: Agnes Mandjo KALLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-09
Citations: 395 F. App'x 34
Docket Number: No. 10-1250
Parties: Agnes Mandjo KALLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 34–36

Head Matter:
Agnes Mandjo KALLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-1250.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2010.
Decided: Sept. 9, 2010.
Peter T. Ndikum, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Frank M. Johnson, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Agnes Mandjo Kalla, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). 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 her 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[.]" Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks 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) (2010), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2010). 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 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) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1048,-L.Ed.2d-(2010).
For asylum applications filed after the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, a trier of fact, "[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors," may base a credibility determination on any inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood "without regard to whether [it] goes to the heart of the applicant's claim[.]" 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii) (2006). "[I]n evaluating an asylum applicant's credibility, an IJ may rely on omissions and inconsistencies that do not directly relate to the applicant's claim of persecution as long as the totality of the circumstances establish that the applicant is not credible." Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir.2008); see also Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir.2008) (noting that the new statute abrogates decisions that focus on whether the inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant's claim for relief).
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 citation 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, 446 F.3d at 538. 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).
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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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, 112 S.Ct. 812; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. Because Kalla failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution, her applications for asylum and withholding of removal were properly denied. We also conclude Kalla failed to establish eligibility for relief under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e)(l, 2) (2010).
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.