Filed: Feb. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1605 XIANG YUE CUI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 7, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Payne, LEE & ASSOCIATES, College Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1605 XIANG YUE CUI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 7, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Payne, LEE & ASSOCIATES, College Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, As..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1605
XIANG YUE CUI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 7, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, LEE & ASSOCIATES, College Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E.
Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem C. Sponzo, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Xiang Yue Cui, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality
Act, withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),
and denying her motion to remand. We deny the petition for
review.
Cui’s asylum application was denied because it was
untimely filed and she failed to establish extraordinary
circumstances or changed conditions excusing the late filing.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006), the Attorney General’s
decision regarding whether an alien has complied with the one-
year time limit for filing an application for asylum or, in the
alternative, established changed conditions or extraordinary
circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is not
reviewable by any court. See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
358-59 (4th Cir. 2009); Niang v. Gonzales,
492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5
(4th Cir. 2007). To the extent Cui claims she was denied due
process in this regard, the claim is without merit.
An alien who has filed an untimely asylum application
is still potentially eligible for the relief of withholding of
removal. To establish eligibility for withholding of removal,
2
an alien must show a clear probability that, if she were removed
to her native country, her “life or freedom would be threatened”
because of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a
social group, or political opinions. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)
(2006); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir.
2004). A “clear probability” means that it is more likely than
not that the alien would be subject to persecution. INS v.
Stevic,
467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). A determination regarding
eligibility for withholding of removal is conclusive if
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
whole, and can be reversed only if a reasonable fact finder
would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution
existed. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
When a determination regarding eligibility for removal
is based on witness credibility, the credibility findings must
be supported by substantial evidence. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d
76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). 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 trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s
testimony on credibility grounds must offer a “specific, cogent
reason” for doing so.
Figeroa, 886 F.2d at 78 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Examples of specific and cogent
reasons include inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence,
3
and inherently improbable testimony[.]” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446
F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding. We further conclude that in light
of the adverse credibility finding, substantial evidence
supports the finding that Cui failed to establish past
persecution or that she has a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Thus, the record does not compel a different
result with respect to the denial of withholding of removal. In
addition, substantial evidence supports the finding that Cui
failed to establish entitlement to relief under the CAT. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2010). We also conclude that the Board did
not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand.
Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005)
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
