Nabintu Mongane v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1420 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1420 NABINTU AURELE MONGANE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-1929 NABINTU AURELE MONGANE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 5, 2009 Decided: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 16, 2009 Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions, Nabintu Aurele Mongane, a native and citizen of the Congo, seeks review of the Board of appeal Immigration from removable and the Appeals ( Board ) immigration denying her judge s order dismissing decision applications for her finding relief her under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ) and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. We deny the petitions for review. To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. Administrative 8 findings C.F.R. of fact would be § 1208.16(c)(2) are conclusive reasonable adjudicator compelled contrary. to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). (2008). unless decide to any the This court will reverse the Board only if the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. requisite fear of persecution. 478, 483-84 (1992); see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). 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). 3 Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent statements, contradictory testimony . . . . Cir. 2006) and inherently improbable Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th (internal quotation Contradictory evidence finding if even evidence, the may marks and support alien offers citations an a adverse plausible omitted). credibility explanation. Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 121-22 (4th Cir. 2007). court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d immigration judge s speculation and 361, 367 adverse conjecture (4th credibility rather than Cir. This 2004). finding specific is to Camara If the based on and cogent reasoning, however, it is not supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538. Even in light of an adverse credibility finding, the immigration judge must still determine if independent evidence supports the alien s claim. Camara, 378 F.3d at 371-72. We find no abuse of discretion. The adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and the record does not compel a contrary finding. We also note that there was a lack of independent evidence showing that it was more likely than not Mongane will be tortured if she returns to the Congo. 4 Mongane also claims she was denied due process. To succeed on a due process claim in an asylum proceeding, the alien must establish two closely linked elements: (1) that a defect in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that the defect prejudiced the outcome of the case. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320-22, 324). Mongane failed to show the proceeding before judge the unfair. immigration or on appeal was fundamentally In light of the adverse credibility finding and the lack of independent evidence supporting her claim, she failed to show she was prejudiced by any alleged defect in the proceeding. We deny the petitions for review. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS 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.
