Kinyam Tewelikum v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1398 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1398 KINYAM JUDE TEWELIKUM, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: January 12, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, Terese Tadros Ibarra, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Bernard A. Joseph, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kinyam Jude Tewelikum, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) judge’s (IJ) withholding dismissing order of his denying removal, Against Torture (CAT). and appeal his from the applications protection under immigration for the asylum, Convention We deny the petition for review. To be eligible for asylum, Tewelikum must show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground if he returns to Cameroon. 921, 927 (4th Cir. 2013). Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d Tewelikum may rely on either showing that he was persecuted in the past or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution independent of any past persecution. Id. If Tewelikum were to establish that he was the victim of past persecution on account of a protected ground, he would be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of persecution. Cir. 2011). persecution Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Tewelikum can also show a well-founded fear of if he presents “candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution,” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted), and specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person Gandziami-Mickhou in v. like circumstances Gonzales, 445 2 F.3d to fear 351, persecution, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). Tewelikum faces a higher standard of proof to establish that he is entitled to withholding of removal. He must show “a clear of probability of persecution on account a protected ground.” Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272 (internal quotation marks omitted). If Tewelikum fails to meet his burden of proof for asylum, he is also ineligible for withholding of removal. The Board’s adverse substantial evidence. Cir. 2015). While credibility finding is Id. reviewed for Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th we will afford the Board’s conclusion substantial deference, there must be specific and cogent reasons for making that finding. should be applicant’s based on account, Id. factors the An adverse credibility finding such as the consistency plausibility between the of the applicant’s written and oral statements, the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record, or any other relevant factor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) 928. credibility (2012); determination may Hui Pan, rest 737 on F.3d any of at these A relevant factors, even if such factor does not “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s testimonial claim.” discrepancy, § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). particularly when “A supported single by other facts in the record, may be sufficient to find an applicant incredible in some circumstances.” Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 207; see also Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 273-74 (adverse credibility finding 3 may be supported by only a few inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions). Because the Board issued its own decision and did not adopt the IJ’s decision, we review only the Board’s decision. Cir. Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th 2015). We have reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that there was no clear error with the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Despite the adverse credibility finding, Tewelikum may establish eligibility for relief through independent evidence. Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 213. Tewelikum may “meet his [] burden by presenting a consistent body of circumstantial evidence.” We have reviewed substantial the evidence Board’s supports findings the and finding conclude that Id. that Tewelikum’s independent evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility for relief. Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 278 (“statements that rely on multiple levels of hearsay can be so highly unreliable by their nature as to justify the agency in refusing to credit them”). As a result, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of conclude asylum that and withholding substantial evidence of removal. also supports Finally, the we finding that Tewelikum was not eligible for protection under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2015). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 4 adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
