Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03604/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03604-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Verri Royke Manitik
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

1

Michael Mukasey is substituted as the Attorney General of the United States

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

2

This case is unique in that the identity of the petitioner is disputed and even

today remains uncertain. Whether Manitik is who he claims to be is immaterial to our

analysis on appeal. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3604

___________

Verri Royke Manitik, also known *

as Ama Rahmat, *

*

Petitioner, * Petition for Review of Order of

* the Board of Immigration Appeals.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Michael B. Mukasey,1

 Attorney *

General of the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: November 12, 2007

Filed: November 19, 2007

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Verri Royke Manitik (or Ama Rahmat)2

 petitions for review of a final order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his application for asylum as

Appellate Case: 06-3604 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374136
-2-

untimely, and dismissed his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT) on the merits. In so holding, the BIA adopted the

Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision but added reasoning of its own. We thus review

both decisions. Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710, 713 (8th Cir. 2006).

First, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's dismissal of Manitik's asylum

application because Manitik has not demonstrated a satisfactory reason for filing his

asylum application outside the time limit. Purwantono v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 822, 824

(8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

We do have jurisdiction, however, to review the BIA's determination that

Manitik is ineligible for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. To be

eligible for withholding of removal, an alien must establish that it is more likely than

not that he would be persecuted upon return to his native country on account of race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Id.

"The IJ's decision will be upheld unless the evidence on the record considered as a

whole compels the conclusion that the alien has established a likelihood of

persecution." Id. at 825. We conclude that the IJ reasonably rejected Manitik's claim

for withholding of removal for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned oral decision,

as analyzed and adopted by the BIA in its order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

For the same reason, we affirm the BIA's determination on Manitik's claim for

relief under the CAT. To obtain relief under the CAT, an alien must show it is more

likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to his native country. 8 C.F.R. §

208.16(c)(2). "Torture is 'an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment

intentionally inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a person acting in an official

capacity.'" Purwantono, 498 F.3d at 826 (quoting Samedov v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704,

708 (8th Cir. 2005)). Here, again, the IJ's oral decision and the BIA's order are

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and require no further

discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

Appellate Case: 06-3604 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374136
-3-

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review on Manitik's claims for

withholding of removal and relief under the CAT are denied. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3604 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374136