Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01544/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01544-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Bao Cai Lian
Petitioner
Xiao Yun Liu
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1544

___________

Xiao Yun Liu, *

Bao Cai Lian, *

*

Petitioners, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 12, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Xiao Yun Liu and Bao Cai Lian, citizens of China, petition for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s

(IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that petitioners’ asylum

application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(3); Aden v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 966,

968 (8th Cir. 2005). As to petitioners’ withholding of removal and CAT claims,

Appellate Case: 05-1544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044246
-2-

which are not subject to the one-year filing deadline, we conclude substantial

evidence on the record as a whole supports the IJ’s denial of those claims. See Ming

Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 870, 872 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of

review); Ibrahim v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1074, 1078-79 (8th Cir. 2006) (IJ’s credibility

finding is entitled to deference if supported by specific, cogent reasons); Sheikh v.

Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1077, 1081 (8th Cir. 2005) (adverse credibility determination as

to core of persecution testimony is dispositive of withholding-of-removal claim);

Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 521-23 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding denial

of CAT relief based on adverse credibility determination with respect to specific fact

upon which CAT claim was premised). Finally, we conclude nothing in the record

suggests the former Immigration and Naturalization Service violated 8 C.F.R. § 208.6

(2005) (confidentiality of records) during its investigation of documents submitted

by petitioners.

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044246