Court Opinion

ID: 994326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:21:20.875795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:15.104187
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ETHEL ETOKE AIYUK,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                      No. 97-1919
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A73-723-671)

Submitted: January 30, 1998

Decided: March 6, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bokwe G. Mofor, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, INC.,
Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Mark C. Walters, Assistant
Director, Loreto S. Geisse, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wash-
ington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ethel Etoke Aiyuk petitions for review of a final order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals ("the Board") denying her application for
asylum and withholding of deportation. We affirm. Our review of the
Board's decision is "narrow, not broad." See Huaman-Cornelio v.
Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). A
decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. We
may reverse the Board only if the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecu-
tion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

Aiyuk challenges the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") finding that she
was not credible based upon inconsistencies between her testimony
and the information she supplied in her application for asylum. An
IJ's credibility determination is granted substantial deference and is
reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. See Figeroa v. INS,
886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that an IJ who rejects a wit-
ness' positive testimony based on a lack of credibility should offer
specific reasons for disbelief).

In Aiyuk's case, the IJ offered several concrete examples of incon-
sistencies between her testimony and her asylum application which
led to his conclusion that her testimony was not credible. Aiyuk con-
tends that the inconsistencies were not material. However, her request
for asylum is primarily based on those items not mentioned in her
application; specifically, her membership in an opposition party and
her alleged arrest and torture. Nor do we find that Aiyuk established
entitlement to asylum based upon her father's membership in an
opposition party and one isolated incident of violence against him.
See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991).
Neither did Aiyuk show that persons similarly situated to her were
being persecuted for their political beliefs. See 8 C.F.R.

                    2
§ 208.13(b)(2) (1997). Nor do we find that the Board improperly
relied on the United States Department of State's report concerning
the political situation in Cameroon. See Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d
902, 906 (9th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the Board's decision. 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.

AFFIRMED

                    3