Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02831/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02831-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Pascal Atem
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2831

___________

Pascal Atem, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of an

* Order of the Board of

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of * Immigration Appeals.

the United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: July 2, 2004

Filed: July 27, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pascal Atem, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s)

denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and for relief under

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). On appeal, Atem argues that (1) the IJ erred

in denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal because Atem

provided credible testimony and evidence that he was persecuted in Cameroon, and

(2) it was more probable than not he would be tortured if he returns to Cameroon.

After careful review of the record, we deny the petition.

Appellate Case: 03-2831 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792528 
-2-

The IJ rejected Atem's asylum claim on the ground that his testimony about

alleged persecution and other matters was not credible. We find that the IJ’s adverse

credibility determination was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief, and

is thus entitled to deference. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir.

2004) (per curiam) (deference standard); Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 709-10

(8th Cir. 2004) (applicant was ineligible for asylum where testimony was not credible

and she had not provided easily obtainable documentation to corroborate and support

her claim). To the extent that Atem’s reference to torture is an attempt to revive his

request for relief under the CAT, it is unavailing, as he did not raise the issue in his

appeal to the BIA. See Afolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2000). Finally,

because we agree with the IJ’s decision as to asylum, we also uphold the IJ’s decision

as to withholding of removal. See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir.

2002) (standard for withholding of removal is more onerous than asylum standard).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2831 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792528