Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 12-1997
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Bintou Jawara, a native and citizen of The Gambia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
judges
(Board)
order
dismissing
denying
withholding of removal. 1
her
her
appeal
from
applications
the
for
immigration
asylum
and
Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
353-54
(4th
Cir.
2006)
(internal
citations
omitted)
(alteration added).
A determination regarding eligibility for withholding
of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on
478,
including
481
(1992).
findings
on
Administrative
credibility,
adjudicator
contrary.
[Boards]
novo,
affording
interpretation
regulations.
be
conclusive
reasonable
reviewed
would
are
findings
compelled
to
appropriate
of
the
INA
of
fact,
unless
decide
to
any
the
and
any
to
the
attendant
Cir. 2008).
could
persecution.
fail
to
find
the
requisite
fear
of
findings
are
reviewed
for
substantial
cogent
statements,
reasons
evidence,
and
include
inconsistent
inherently
improbable
testimony[.]
contradictory
Tewabe
v.
Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
cannot
reasons
reject
why
documentary
the
documents
evidence
are
3
not
without
specific,
credible.
cogent
Kourouma
v.
Holder,
588
F.3d
credibility
234,
241
determination
(4th
based
Cir.
on
2009).
minor
An
adverse
discrepancies
or
cannot
Gonzales,
constitute
495
F.3d
evidence. 2
substantial
113,
122
(4th
Cir.
Dankam
2007);
see
v.
also
conclude
that
substantial
evidence
supports
the
(details that surround the event that is the basis for the claim
for
relief
evidence
in
are
the
more
than
record,
minor
such
as
or
trivial
the
details).
whereabouts
of
Other
Jawaras
true
identity,
are
also
not
minor
details
and
lend
We
did
not
also
support
conclude
her
that
claim.
Jawaras
The
independent
immigration
judge
evidence
provided
for
The
Gambia
was
with
contentions
are
oral
we
conclusive
evidence
that
deny
argument
adequately
not
the
petition
because
presented
in
the
the
for
facts
review.
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED