Filed: Sep. 16, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2399 AHMED TAGELSIR ABDELRAHMAN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2010 Decided: September 16, 2010 Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, Virginia, fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2399 AHMED TAGELSIR ABDELRAHMAN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2010 Decided: September 16, 2010 Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, Virginia, for..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2399
AHMED TAGELSIR ABDELRAHMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 20, 2010 Decided: September 16, 2010
Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K.
Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ahmed Tagelsir Abdelrahman, a native and citizen of
Sudan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order finding him removable and finding he
was not entitled to asylum, withholding from removal and
withholding from removal under the Convention Against Torture.
Abdelrahman does not challenge the immigration judge’s adverse
credibility finding with respect to his past political
activities or his claims regarding past persecution. He asserts
that he established a well-founded fear of persecution. 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) (2006). 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) (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[.]” Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
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) (2010), 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)
(2010). “An applicant who demonstrates that 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). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground.
Id. at 187. 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. The subjective
fear [must have] some basis in the reality of the circumstances
and [be] validated with specific, concrete facts, and it cannot
be mere irrational apprehension.” Qiao Hua
Li, 405 F.3d at 176
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
3
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 BIA’s
interpretation of the INA 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 Rusu v. INS,
296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We conclude there was no abuse of discretion and the
record does not compel a different result. Substantial evidence
supports the finding that Abdelrahman did not have a well-
founded fear of persecution. 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
