German Maya Angel v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1703
GERMAN MAYA ANGEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 23, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ofelia Calderon, MARKS, CALDERON, DERWIN & RACINE, P.L.C.,
Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant
Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Michael C. Heyse, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

PER CURIAM:
German Maya Angel, a native and citizen of Columbia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
from removal and withholding under the Convention Against
Torture.* We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a), (b) (2006). It defines a refugee as a person
unwilling or unable to return to his 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) (2006).
“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
of the enumerated grounds . . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
* The immigration judge’s denial of Angel’s application for
relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this
court because Angel did not challenge the denial in his appeal
to the Board or in his brief filed in this court.
2

-- 2 of 5 --

An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2009), and can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
(2009). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004).
“Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that [his] life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert.
filed (Aug. 11, 2009) (No. 09-194). “This is a more stringent
standard than that for asylum . . . . [and], while asylum is
discretionary, if an alien establishes eligibility for
withholding of removal, the grant is mandatory.” Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal citations omitted) (alteration added).
Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony
on credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]”
3

-- 3 of 5 --

for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Examples of specific and
cogent reasons include inconsistent statements, contradictory
evidence, and inherently improbable testimony[.]” Tewabe v.
Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). This court accords broad, though
not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by
substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367
(4th Cir. 2004).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed 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)
(2006). 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).
We find the Board used the correct legal standard in
determining that Angel did not have a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of a protected ground. We further find
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. The
4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
evidence in the record, including Angel’s testimony, his asylum
application, the letter from his father and the statements filed
by relatives, and the testimony of others, does not compel the
conclusion that Angel was targeted on account of a protected
ground.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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

-- 5 of 5 --