Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01163/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Mohamed Ibrahim Ismail
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1163

___________

Mohamed Ibrahim Ismail, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of an Order

* of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of *

the United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2004

Filed: February 4, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and MELLOY Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Mohamed Ibrahim Ismail (“Mr. Ismail”) seeks review of a final order of

removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the

decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that found Mr. Ismail failed to prove past

persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or eligibility for protection

under Article III of the Convention Against Torture. 

Appellate Case: 04-1163 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863666 
-2-

I. Factual Background

Mr. Ismail testified to the following facts. He is a citizen of Somalia. He was

born in Mogadishu, Somalia and is a member of the Midgan clan. Mr. Ismail is

married and has six children, and his wife and children reside in Ethiopia. Mr. Ismail

and his family fled to Ethiopia in 1993 after suffering persecution based on their

Midgan clan membership. 

Mr. Ismail described acts of violence perpetrated on his family by members of

the Hawiye clan. In 1991, Hawiye militia members came to Mr. Ismail’s home, killed

his father, beat his mother, and raped his wife, who was pregnant. The militiamen

beat Mr. Ismail and brought him to their camp. He was later released and walked six

hours to his home. Militia members visited Mr. Ismail’s home five or six more times.

Each time, they threatened and beat the family. Mr. Ismail’s wife was raped on

multiple occasions. 

In 1993, Mr. Ismail and his family moved to Ethiopia. Mr. Ismail lived there

with his family until 1997, when the Ethiopian government began compelling men

to serve in the war. Mr. Ismail went to Djibouti and began to collect money to travel

to the United States. Mr. Ismail flew from Djibouti to France and then on to Los

Angeles, California. From there, he took a bus to San Diego. He lived in San Diego

until October 1999 when he moved to San Jose until August 2000. 

II. Procedural Background

Mr. Ismail filed for asylum on October 11, 1999. His case was referred to an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in San Francisco, and a Notice to Appear was issued on

December 15, 1999. Mr. Ismail appeared before an IJ on January 26, 2000 and

conceded removability. On May 19, 2000, Mr. Ismail appeared at an asylum hearing.

Appellate Case: 04-1163 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863666 
-3-

On September 18, 2000, Mr. Ismail’s Motion for Change of Venue was granted and

his case was transferred to Bloomington, Minnesota.

The IJ in Minnesota held a hearing on Mr. Ismail’s applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and Article III protection. The IJ admitted evidence,

including Mr. Ismail’s birth certificate, Mr. Ismail’s fingerprint application and

biographic information form, medical records, photographs, and letters. The IJ

excluded: (1) an INS forensic document that was not accompanied by the expert’s

curriculum vitae, as required by court order; (2) letters submitted by Mr. Ismail that

lacked English translations; and (3) testimony from two of Mr. Ismail’s proposed

witnesses, one because Mr. Ismail failed to provide the alien registration number for

the individual, and the other because Mr. Ismail failed to provide the address, phone

number or alien registration number for the individual.

The IJ denied Mr. Ismail’s request for asylum, withholding of removal, relief

under Article III of the Convention Against Torture, and voluntary departure, and

ordered Mr. Ismail removed to Somalia. The BIA affirmed and ordered Mr. Ismail

deported. Mr. Ismail now appeals.

III. Statutory Background

“The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien . . . if the Attorney General

determines that such alien is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A refugee is “any

person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . who is unable or

unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the

protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). 

Appellate Case: 04-1163 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863666 
-4-

The petitioner has the burden of showing refugee status. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a).

To show a well-founded fear of persecution, the petitioner “must demonstrate a fear

that is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. For an alien’s fear of

persecution to be objectively reasonable, the fear must have basis in reality and must

be neither irrational nor so speculative or general as to lack credibility.”

Perinpanathan v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted).

IV. The Findings Below

Although the facts, as alleged by Mr. Ismail, would compel a finding of

asylum, if true, the IJ found that Mr. Ismail was not credible. First, the IJ found him

not credible because of the lack of documentary evidence, such as documents

regarding Mr. Ismail’s identity, nationality, clan membership, his time in Ethiopia,

and his travel from Djibouti to France to California. Second, the IJ found him not

credible because of “countless inconsistencies” between his hearing testimony, his

testimony at an earlier proceeding, his interview with an asylum officer, and his

asylum application. 

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, reasoning that it was

supported by “material discrepancies in the record” that had not been satisfactorily

explained by Mr. Ismail. The BIA pointed out three discrepancies in particular. First,

the BIA found Mr. Ismail was inconsistent about how his father was killed during the

first attack on the family home. According to the asylum officer’s notes, Mr. Ismail

had claimed during an interview that his father was stabbed during a Hawiye raid of

the house. However, Mr. Ismail had previously testified that, when the house was

raided, “they starting slashing my father.” During later proceedings, Mr. Ismail

testified that his father was shot during the raid.

Second, the BIA found that Mr. Ismail was inconsistent about when his wife

was stabbed with a bayonet. At different points in the proceedings, Mr. Ismail had

Appellate Case: 04-1163 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863666 
-5-

stated that: (1) his wife was injured by the bayonet during the first raid of the home

while protecting Mr. Ismail’s father, (2) during the first raid, his wife was taken to a

different room (not mentioning the bayonet wound), and (3) his wife was injured by

the bayonet during a later attack, but that it “was not a big injury.”

Third, the BIA found that Mr. Ismail was inconsistent about facts regarding the

first raid on his home. The BIA found, for example, that Mr. Ismail had testified

initially that the Hawiye left him tied up at the conclusion of the attack, but had

subsequently testified that he was taken by the Hawiye to a place about ten minutes

from his home and was held for two days before making his way back home.

V. Standard of Review

The BIA’s decision is the subject of our review because it is the final agency

decision. However, to the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings, we review

those IJ findings as part of the final agency decision. Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382

F.3d 832, 837 (8th Cir. 2004). 

“The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum or

withholding of deportation is reviewed for substantial evidence, and may not be

overturned unless ‘the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597

(quoting Feleke v. I.N.S., 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997)); 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B); see also I.N.S. v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992) (“To

reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports [the

opposite] conclusion, but compels it.”) The question before us is “whether, based on

the record considered as a whole, the BIA’s decision was supported by reasonable,

substantial, and probative evidence.” Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597 (internal

quotations omitted). 

Appellate Case: 04-1163 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863666 
-6-

“It is well settled that ‘an immigration judge is in the best position to make

credibility findings because he [or she] sees the witness as the testimony is given.’”

Mayo v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hartooni v. I.N.S., 21

F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir. 1994)). Therefore, we “defer[] to an immigration judge’s

credibility finding where the finding is ‘supported by a specific, cogent reason for

disbelief.’” Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597 (quoting Ghasemimehr v. I.N.S., 7 F.3d

1389, 1391 (8th Cir. 1993)).

VI. Discussion

We find that the BIA’s decision that Mr. Ismail is not eligible for asylum and

withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. Both the IJ and the BIA

found Mr. Ismail not credible. This credibility finding was supported by multiple

inconsistencies between Mr. Ismail’s statements in his asylum application, his

interview with an asylum officer, and his testimony in the proceedings. Mr. Ismail

claims that his misunderstanding of the proceedings and time constraints led him to

be less complete at some times than others. He also contends an incompetent

interpreter inserted mistakes into the record. While these explanations may seem

plausible, we are not free to reverse merely for this reason. The issue for us to decide

is whether the finding below is supported by substantial evidence. We are free to

reverse only when “‘the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597

(quoting Feleke v. I.N.S., 118 F.3d at 598). The IJ, with the benefit of live testimony,

disbelieved Mr. Ismail. The IJ gave “specific, cogent” reasons for this disbelief.

Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597 (quoting Ghasemimehr v. I.N.S., 7 F.3d at 1391). We

must therefore defer to the IJ’s finding and affirm. Id. 

Mr. Ismail also contends that he is entitled to reversal because the IJ violated

his due process rights by excluding evidence and two potential witnesses, limiting

time for his direct examination, objecting to a line of questioning by his counsel, and

Appellate Case: 04-1163 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863666 
-7-

allowing the government to use illegible notes from the asylum officer. “The

Supreme Court has long recognized that deportable aliens are entitled to

constitutional protections of due process.” Lopez v. Heinauer, 332 F.3d 507, 512

(8th Cir. 2003). To prevail on a denial of due process claim, “an alien must

demonstrate both a fundamental procedural error and that the error resulted in

prejudice.” Id. To prove prejudice, an alien must show that the outcome of the

proceedings may well have been different had the due process violation not occurred.

Al Khouri v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 461, 466 (8th Cir. 2004). In this case, even assuming

there was a fundamental procedural error, Mr. Ismail’s claim does not form a basis

for reversal. Mr. Ismail failed to suggest, much less show, prejudice resulted from the

alleged due process violations. Without this showing, his claim does not warrant

reversal.

Since Mr. Ismail has not met the standard for asylum, it follows that he has

failed to meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zakirov v.

Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 541, 547 (8th Cir. 2004). Mr. Ismail has also failed to show that

it is more likely than not that he will be tortured should he return to Somalia. He is

therefore not entitled to relief under Article III of the Convention Against Torture.

Id. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1163 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863666