Charles Brunal v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1846 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1846 CHARLES DAVID SEGUNDO BRUNAL; SANDRA MARGARITA FERNANDEZ; CARLOS ANDREA BRUNAL; CAROLINA MARIA BRUNAL, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 20, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christine Lockhart Poarch, THE POARCH LAW FIRM, PC, Salem, Virginia, for Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles David Segundo Brunal ( Brunal ), the lead Petitioner, and his wife, Sandra Margarita Fernandez, and his children, Carlos and Carolina Brunal, are natives and citizens of Columbia. They petition for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s order denying their applications for asylum, withholding Against of removal Torture, and denying withholding their motion under to the Convention reopen, remand from this court, affirming the prior orders. and after We deny the petition for review. The INA authorizes asylum on any refugee. the Attorney General 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). to confer It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country because persecution on of persecution account of or race, a well-founded religion, fear of nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). infliction or threat of death, Persecution involves the 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 alien bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for asylum, Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2 2006); see 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. (2008). 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 Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. persecution. 2004). This presumption can be rebutted on a finding of a fundamental change of circumstances so that the alien no longer has a well-founded fear, or a finding that the alien could avoid persecution C.F.R. § by relocating within 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), the (B). country The of removal. Service burden of proof for rebutting the presumption. bears 8 the Naizgi, 455 F.3d at 486. Without regard establish a ground. Ngarurih, to well-founded 371 past fear F.3d of at persecution, persecution 187. The an on alien a can protected 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 of the presentation candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances 3 and be validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension. Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear probability that, if he was removed to his native country, his life or freedom would be threatened on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A clear probability means that it is more likely than not that the INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. alien would be subject to persecution. 407, 429-30 (1984). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are reviewed de novo, affording appropriate deference to the BIA s interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations. Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). court will reverse the Board only if the evidence This . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear 4 of persecution. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). We find substantial evidence supports the finding that Brunal failed to show past persecution, that Brunal did not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion, having a political opinion imputed to him or on account of any membership in a particular social group, or that it was not more likely than not he will be tortured if he returned to Columbia. 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 5

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.