Clarisse Nzame Soghe v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 4th Cir. 2005 internal quotation marks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1574
CLARISSE NZAME SOGHE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-082-436)
Submitted: November 3, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A.
Hunolt, Mark L. Gross, Sarah Canzoniero Blutter, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Clarisse Nzame Soghe, an alien with dual
citizenship in Gabon and the Central African Republic (“CAR”),
petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from removal
and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the
petition for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2000). The INA 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). “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).
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) (2006). 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

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). The well-founded fear standard contains
both a subjective and an objective component. The objective
element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would
lead a reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006).
“The subjective component can be met through the presentation of
candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine
fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the
reality of the circumstances and be validated with specific,
concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational
apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating her
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gandziami-
Mickhou, 445 F.3d at 353. 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.A. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(West 2005). 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.” Rusu v.

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Soghe claimed she was entitled to relief because she
feared returning to Gabon and possibly being kidnapped by agents
from the CAR as a result of her father’s involvement in the prior
government for the CAR. We find substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s finding that this claim was entirely
speculative and without corroborative support.
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

-- 4 of 4 --