Fernand Nyam v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 11-1788 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1788 FERNAND TOUSSAINT THOMA NYAM, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 24, 2012 Decided: March 8, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stefanie Notarino Hennes, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Fernand Toussaint Thoma Nyam, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions Immigration Appeals for review ( Board ) of an order dismissing of his the appeal Board of from the immigration judge s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and Against Torture ( CAT ). withholding under the Convention Nyam challenges the finding that he failed to show that the asylum application was timely filed. also challenges the adverse credibility finding. He We deny the petition for review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006), the Attorney General s decision regarding whether an alien has complied with the one-year time limit for filing an application for asylum or established changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is not reviewable by any court. Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). See Although § 1252(a)(2)(D) provides that nothing in § 1252(a)(2)(B), (C), or in any other provision of this [Act] . . . which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law, this court has held that the question of whether an asylum application is untimely or whether the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception applies is factual circumstances. a discretionary determination Gomis, 571 F.3d at 358. 2 based on Accordingly, absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, [the court s] review § 1252(a)(2)(D). of the Id. issue Because is Nyam not authorized fails to raise by a constitutional claim or a question of law concerning the finding that he did not bear his burden of proof in this regard, we are without jurisdiction to review the finding that his asylum application was untimely. While this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the denial of Nyam s untimely application for asylum, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT as these claims are not subject to the one-year time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2011). This court will uphold the Board s decision unless it is manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. The standard of review of the agency s findings is narrow and deferential. Factual substantial evidence. finding unless adjudicator contrary. the would findings are affirmed if supported by Substantial evidence exists to support a evidence have Therefore, been we was such compelled review an that to any reasonable conclude adverse to the credibility determination for substantial evidence and give broad deference to the Board s credibility determination. immigration judge must provide 3 specific, The Board and the cogent reasons for making an adverse credibility determination. We recognize that omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate making an adverse credibility determination. reasons for The existence of only a few such inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions can be sufficient for the Board to make an adverse credibility determination as to the alien s entire testimony regarding past persecution. An inconsistency can serve as a basis for an adverse credibility determination even if it does not go to the heart of the alien s claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006); see also Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating standard of review). finding can support a conclusion establish past persecution. An adverse credibility that the alien did not See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 121-23 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Chen v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2006) (denial of relief can be based solely upon an adverse credibility finding). We adverse conclude credibility that substantial finding. The evidence immigration supports judge specific and cogent reasons in support of the finding. the listed It was not an abuse of discretion for the immigration judge and the Board to find that Nyam s inconsistencies important to his claim for relief. were critically We further conclude that the immigration judge considered the entire record and substantial 4 evidence supports the finding that Nyam s independent evidence falls short Given that of the overcoming adverse the adverse credibility credibility finding raises finding. questions about the authenticity of Nyam s claim that he was persecuted, we conclude that the record does not compel a different result. In addition, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Nyam did not meet his burden of proof to establish eligibility for relief under the CAT. We deny the petition 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. 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.
