Ali Victor Yago v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2331
ALI VICTOR YAGO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 24, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, PAYNE & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S.
Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ashley Y. Martin, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ali Victor Yago, a native and citizen of Burkina Faso,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Before this court, Yago challenges the determination
that he failed to establish his eligibility for relief. More
specifically, Yago contends that the adverse credibility
determination reached by the immigration judge and affirmed by
the Board was not supported by substantial evidence, and that
the Board and the immigration judge erred in concluding that he
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution on account of his involvement with an
organization that educated young girls about the dangers of
female genital mutilation.
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, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,
517 F.3d 685, 691–92 (4th Cir. 2008). 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 also Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir.
2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not
eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592
F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
finding. We further conclude that, notwithstanding the adverse
credibility determination, Yago failed to present sufficient
independent evidence of past persecution, as discussed in Camara
v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370-71 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore
uphold the denial of Yago’s requests for asylum and withholding
of removal. See Camara, 368 F.3d at 367 (“Because the burden of
proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum —
even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an
applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible
for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Finally, we hold that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Yago failed to meet the standard for relief
under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an
applicant must establish “that it is more likely than not that
he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2011). Yago simply
failed to make this showing before the immigration court.
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 --