Kirubale Abera v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2264 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2264 KIRUBALE TEKELE ABERA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 13, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan D. Dobson, ALAN DOBSON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michael C. Heyse, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kirubale Ethiopia, Tekele petitions Immigration for Appeals Abera, review ( Board ) a of native an and order dismissing of his citizen the of Board from appeal of the immigration judge s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). Abera challenges the adverse credibility finding and the denial of relief under the CAT. We deny the petition for review. The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. § 1158(a) (2006). the 8 U.S.C. It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his 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 Persecution opinion. involves 8 the U.S.C. § infliction 1101(a)(42)(A) or threat of (2006). 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 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) 2 (2009), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground. (2009). Without regard establish a ground. Ngarurih to well-founded v. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) past fear persecution, of Ashcroft, persecution 371 F.3d an on 182, alien a can 187 protected (4th Cir. 2004). The well-founded fear standard subjective and an objective component. contains 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 Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal mere irrational apprehension. quotation marks and citations omitted). Credibility evidence. findings are reviewed for substantial A trier of fact who rejects an applicant s testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific, cogent reason[s] for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, 3 and inherently improbable testimony . . . . Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Where, as here, the applicant filed his application for asylum after May 11, 2005, certain provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 regarding credibility determinations are applicable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). Specifically, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant s or witness s account, the consistency between the applicant s or witness s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant s claim, or any other relevant factor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This deference evidence. 2004). to court accords credibility Camara v. broad, findings Ashcroft, 378 though supported F.3d 361, not unlimited, by substantial 367 (4th Cir. If the immigration judge s adverse credibility finding is based on speculation and conjecture rather than specific and cogent reasoning, however, it is not supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538. 4 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 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (2006). 8 U.S.C. § 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. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). We find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. We have reviewed the record, including the independent evidence supporting the claim of past persecution, and find that the record does not compel a different result. We further find that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief under the CAT. Abera failed to show that it was more likely than not he will be tortured when he returns to Ethiopia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). 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 5 court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 6

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.