Jude Agwa Ozughen v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 4th Cir. 2004 . An

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1629
JUDE AGWA OZUGHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-646-112)
Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: December 4, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kim-Bun Thomas Li, LI, LATSEY & GUITERMAN, PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Hill B. Wellford, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 4 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jude Agwa Ozughen, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ozughen challenges
the adverse credibility finding and the denial of relief under the
CAT. 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 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) (2000). An applicant can
establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native
country or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2006); Ngarurih v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006).
Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. A
trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on credibility

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing so.
Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). “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). If the immigration judge’s
adverse credibility finding is based on speculation and conjecture
rather than specific and cogent reasoning, it is not supported by
substantial evidence. Tewabe, 446 F.3d at 538.
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 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.” Rusu v.
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse
credibility finding. Accordingly, the evidence is not so
compelling as to warrant a different result as to the denial of
asylum and withholding from removal.
We further find substantial evidence supports the denial
of relief under the CAT. The denial of relief was supported by the
adverse credibility finding and the lack of independent evidence in
support of the claim. Camara, 378 F.3d at 370, 372. Much of the
evidence cited by Ozughen does not fall into the category of
independent evidence. Gandziami-Mickhou, 445 F.3d at 358-59.
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 --