Caleche Bongo v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2056 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2056 CALECHE NJWENG BONGO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Celestine Tatung, AMITY, KUM & SULEMAN, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Ada E. Bosque, Yamileth G. HandUber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Caleche Cameroon, Njweng petitions for Bongo, review Immigration Appeals judge s decision of ( Board ) immigration a native an and order adopting denying of and citizen the Board of of the applications her affirming for asylum, withholding and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). The We deny the petition for review. 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 her native country because persecution on of persecution account of or a race, 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. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2009), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. (2009). Without regard to past 2 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) persecution, an alien can establish a ground. Ngarurih 2004). well-founded A v. fear of Ashcroft, determination persecution 371 a protected 182, 187 (4th eligibility regarding F.3d on Cir. 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 of persecution. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). An immigration determination on any judge may inconsistency, make a inaccuracy, credibility or falsehood without regard to whether [it] . . . goes to the heart of the applicant s [I]n claim. evaluating 8 an U.S.C. asylum § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) applicant s (2006). credibility, an [immigration judge] may rely on omissions and inconsistencies that do not directly relate to 3 the applicant s claim of persecution as long as the totality of the establish that the applicant is not credible. circumstances Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d statute 784, 787-88 abrogates (7th Cir. decisions 2008) that (noting focus that on the whether new the inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant s claim for relief). This court substantial evidence. applicant s testimony reviews A credibility trier on of fact credibility who grounds for rejects must an offer Figeroa v. INS, 886 specific, cogent reason[s] for doing so. F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). findings 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 citations omitted). This court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. (4th Cir. 2004). finding is based Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 If the immigration judge s adverse credibility on speculation and conjecture rather than specific and cogent reasoning, however, it is not supported by substantial evidence. We credibility find Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538. substantial finding. Given evidence that 4 supports finding and the the adverse lack of corroborating evidence, we find the record does not compel a different result with respect withholding from removal. to the denial of asylum and We also find the record does compel a different result with respect to the denial of relief under the CAT. 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.