Rosette Zetchem v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 4th Cir. 2004 alteration added . To establish…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2098
ROSETTE ZETCHEM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-254-990)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: June 7, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A.
Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jason S. Patil, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Rosette Zetchem, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the
petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum
on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It defines a refugee
as a person unwilling or unable to return to her 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 opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)
(2000). An applicant can establish refugee status based on past
persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2005). “An applicant who demonstrates
that [s]he was the subject of past persecution is presumed to have
a well-founded fear of persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004) (alteration added). To establish
eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear
probability that, if she was removed to her native country, her
“life or freedom would be threatened” on a protected ground. 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). An applicant has the burden of

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
demonstrating her eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2005); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999).
Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. A
trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on credibility
grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing so.
Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). This court
accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility
findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara, 378 F.3d at
367.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings
of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). This court will reverse the Board “only if the evidence
presented by the petitioner was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
We find substantial evidence supports the immigration
judge’s findings that Zetchem was not credible and she failed to
provide reliable corroborative evidence supporting her claim.
Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a different result with

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
respect to her applications for asylum and withholding from
removal. We further find the immigration judge did not err in
denying the application for withholding under the Convention
Against Torture. Zetchem failed to submit reliable independent
evidence showing it was more likely than not she will be tortured
if she returns to Cameroon.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also
deny Zetchem’s second motion for a stay of deportation. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --