Victorien Mankah Awantang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-2060 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2060 VICTORIEN MANKAH AWANTANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 4, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Dana M. Camilleri, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Victorien Cameroon, petitions Immigration Appeals immigration judge s withholding of Mankah for Awantang, review ( Board ) and an native order dismissing denial removal, of a of her and of her the under of Board for of from appeal requests protection citizen the asylum, the Convention for asylum Against Torture. A determination regarding eligibility 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. reviewed [Board] s 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). de novo, affording interpretation of appropriate the Legal issues are deference [Immigration and to the Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). 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). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to 2 the law and an abuse of discretion. Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial finding. evidence supports the adverse credibility We further conclude that Awantang failed to present sufficient independent notwithstanding the evidence adverse of past credibility persecution, determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore uphold the denial of Awantang s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367 ( Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] evidence supports § 1231(b)(3). ). * Finally, we find that substantial the finding that Awantang failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. * To obtain such relief, an In upholding the denial of relief, we specifically reject Awantang s claim that the agency erred in admitting an investigative report conducted by U.S. State Department Special Agent Miguel A. Eversley, and find that consideration of the report was not fundamentally unfair. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). 3 applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. Awantang 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). failed to make the we requisite deny We find that showing before the review. We immigration court. Accordingly, dispense with oral argument the petition because the for facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
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.
