Mengistab Asmelash Haile v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1405
MENGISTAB ASMELASH HAILE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 19, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016
Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leake Fesseha, LAW OFFICE OF LEAKE FESSEHA, Arlington, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, John B.
Holt, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mengistab Asmelash Haile, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review.
We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for
substantial evidence, “reversing only if the evidence compels a
contrary finding.” Pastora v. Holder, 737 F.3d 902, 905 (4th
Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012)). An adverse
credibility finding must be supported by specific, cogent
reasons. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011).
[O]missions, 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 agency to make an adverse
credibility determination as to the applicant’s entire
testimony regarding past persecution.
Id. at 273-74 (internal citations omitted). 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) (2012).
We have reviewed the record and considered Haile’s
arguments challenging the adverse credibility finding and

-- 2 of 4 --

3
conclude that the finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The inconsistencies as specified by the Board concern the core
of Haile’s asylum claim. See Qing Hua Lin v. Holder, 736 F.3d
343, 353 (4th Cir. 2013) (finding alien’s failure to mention
forced abortion at airport interview was “not a minor
evidentiary detail whose absence can be overlooked, it [was] the
very core of her claim”); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 122
(4th Cir. 2007) (“Because the arrests are the key events
underlying [the] claim for asylum, it follows that details
surrounding these arrests and the dates on which they occurred
are more than minor or trivial details.”). We also conclude
that the record does not compel a finding that the record of
sworn statement was unreliable. The typed and detailed
statement had several indicators of reliability. See
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 180 (2d Cir. 2004)
(setting forth factors to use to evaluate the reliability of the
airport interview).
We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Haile failed to submit “adequate independent
documentary evidence to establish asylum eligibility.”
Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 213 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Because Haile’s
challenge to the denial of protection under the CAT relies upon

-- 3 of 4 --

4
us finding error with the agency’s adverse credibility finding,
we further conclude that substantial evidence supports the
denial of protection under the CAT.
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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --