Soghe v. Gonzales, No. 06-1574 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1574 CLARISSE NZAME SOGHE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-082-436) Submitted: November 3, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Mark L. Gross, Sarah Canzoniero Blutter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Clarisse Nzame Soghe, an alien with dual citizenship in Gabon and the Central African Republic ( CAR ), petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) affirming without opinion the immigration judge s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. § 1158(a) (2000). 8 U.S.C. The INA 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) (2000). 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). An applicant can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § persecution, 1208.13(b)(1) (2006). Without an establish a alien can persecution on a protected ground. - 2 - regard well-founded to past fear of Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 apprehension. . . . and it cannot be mere irrational Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). An applicant eligibility for asylum. has the burden of demonstrating her 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gandziami- Mickhou, 445 F.3d at 353. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (West 2005). 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 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. - 3 - Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Soghe claimed she was entitled to relief because she feared returning to Gabon and possibly being kidnapped by agents from the CAR as a result of her father s involvement in the prior government for the CAR. immigration judge s We find substantial evidence supports the finding that this claim was entirely speculative and without corroborative support. 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 - 4 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.