Filed: May 02, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2126 MADELEINE KONOU AMEGBEDJI; KOSSI SEYRAM AMEGBEDJI, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 20, 2012 Decided: May 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York, New York, for Petit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2126 MADELEINE KONOU AMEGBEDJI; KOSSI SEYRAM AMEGBEDJI, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 20, 2012 Decided: May 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York, New York, for Petiti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2126
MADELEINE KONOU AMEGBEDJI; KOSSI SEYRAM AMEGBEDJI,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 20, 2012 Decided: May 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York,
New York, for Petitioners. Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Rachel L. Browning, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Madeleine Konou Amegbedji and Kossi Seyram Amegbedji
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying their application for asylum, withholding
from removal and withholding under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). 1 We deny the petition for review.
An alien has the burden of showing she is eligible for
relief. In order to show eligibility for asylum, she must show
that she was subjected to past persecution or has a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of a protected ground such as
political opinion. If the applicant establishes past
persecution, she has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of
a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)
(2011).
This court will uphold the Board’s decision unless it
is manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.
The standard of review of the agency’s findings is narrow and
deferential. Factual findings are affirmed if supported by
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence exists to support a
finding unless the evidence was such that any reasonable
1
Madeleine Amegbedji was the lead applicant and Kossi
Amegbedji was the derivative applicant.
2
adjudicator would have been compelled to conclude to the
contrary. Therefore, we review an adverse credibility
determination for substantial evidence and give broad deference
to the Board’s credibility determination. The Board and the
immigration judge must provide specific, cogent reasons for
making an adverse credibility determination. We recognize that
omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and
inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making
an adverse credibility determination. The existence of only a
few such inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions can be
sufficient for the Board to make an adverse credibility
determination as to the alien’s entire testimony regarding past
persecution. An inconsistency can serve as a basis for an
adverse credibility determination even if it does not go to the
heart of the alien’s claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)
(2006); Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272-74 & n.1 (4th Cir.
2011) (case citations omitted). An adverse credibility finding
can support a conclusion that the alien did not establish past
persecution. See Dankam v. Gonzales,
495 F.3d 113, 121-23 (4th
Cir. 2007); see also Chen v. Attorney General,
463 F.3d 1228,
1231 (11th Cir. 2006) (denial of asylum relief can be based
solely upon an adverse credibility finding).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding. The immigration judge listed
3
specific and cogent reasons in support of the finding. It was
not an abuse of discretion for the immigration judge and the
Board to find that Amegbedji’s numerous inconsistencies,
particularly those concerning her nationality, were critically
important to her claim for relief. Given the nature of the
inconsistencies and Amegbedji’s reluctance to admitting to
having more than one passport and confirming her actual country
of birth and her evasiveness regarding her current address, we
further conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Amegbedji’s independent evidence falls short of overcoming
the adverse credibility finding. 2
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
2
The Petitioners have abandoned any challenge to the denial
of withholding of removal and the denial of relief under the CAT
by failing to raise an issue in their brief. Accordingly, this
court will not review those findings. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that the failure
to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment
of that challenge); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231,
241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
4
