Tchlalou Hiator v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1293 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1293 TCHLALOU AKOUVI HIATOR, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph M. Kum, AMITY, KUM & SULEMAN, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Andrew B. Insenga, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tchlalou Akouvi Hiator, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) order affirming the immigration judge s order denying her application protection for under asylum, the withholding Convention Against of removal, Torture. and Hiator challenges the immigration judge s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d decision 533, 538 only if (4th the Cir. 2006), evidence and was so reverse the compelling Board s that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Having reviewed the administrative record and the Board s decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling that Hiator failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. persecution as See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8 2 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (same). compel a different denial of result, Hiator s we Because the record does not will application not for disturb asylum, the Board s withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
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.
