Selome Negawo v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2169 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2169 SELOME MEGERSA NEGAWO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fitsum Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ali Manuchehry, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Selome Ethiopia, Megersa petitions Immigration Negawo, for Appeals review ( Board ) a of native an and order affirming of citizen the without Board opinion of of the immigration judge s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and Against Torture ( CAT ). The INA withholding the Convention We deny the petition for review. authorizes asylum on any refugee. under 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 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. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. (2008). Without regard to past 2 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) persecution, an alien can establish a well-founded ground. Ngarurih 2004). The v. fear of Ashcroft, well-founded persecution 371 fear F.3d 182, standard subjective and an objective component. on a protected 187 (4th contains Cir. both a The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person Gandziami-Mickhou 2006). The presentation in like v. Gonzales, subjective of candid, circumstances to fear 445 F.3d 351, component can be credible, and persecution. 353 met (4th Cir. through sincere the 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 . . . 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 she were removed to her native country, her 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 the alien would be subject to persecution. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 3 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). For asylum applications filed after the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, a trier of fact, considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, may base a credibility determination on any inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood without regard to whether [it] goes to the heart of the applicant s claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). [I]n evaluating an asylum applicant s credibility, an IJ may rely on omissions and inconsistencies that do not directly relate to the applicant s claim of persecution as long as the totality of the circumstances establish that the applicant is not credible. Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 4 2008); see also Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that the new statute abrogates decisions that focus on whether the inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant s claim for relief). The immigration judge s order is the final decision for this court s review as a result of the Board s affirmance without opinion. Khattak v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2003). We find substantial credibility finding. evidence supports the adverse An immigration judge s assessment of an applicant s demeanor merits great deference. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir. 2006); see also SinghKaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (2006), a trier of fact may base a credibility determination responsiveness of the on the applicant demeanor, or candor, witness, the or inherent plausibility of the applicant s or witness's account . . . We also find the record does not 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.