Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01237/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01237-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fatoumata Jolloh Diallo
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

1

Michael B. Mukasey has been appointed to serve as Attorney General and is

substituted as respondent pursuant to Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1237

___________

Fatoumata Jolloh Diallo, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey, United *

States Attorney General,1 *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: November 12, 2007 

Filed: November 19, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Fatoumata Jolloh Diallo (Diallo) petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).

In support of her petition, Diallo argues the BIA erred in: (1) upholding the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination and (2) upholding the IJ’s

Appellate Case: 07-1237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374052
-2-

finding that changed country conditions precluded a determination Diallo would face

persecution if removed to her native country of Sierra Leone. We dismiss Diallo’s

petition as it relates to her asylum claim, and deny the remainder of the petition. 

I. BACKGROUND

After the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal

proceedings against Diallo, she conceded removability, and sought asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The IJ designated Sierra Leone as her

country of removal. Diallo testified she was persecuted in Sierra Leone. Specifically,

Diallo stated she and her family were active in a disfavored political party and, based

upon this political involvement, her father and two brothers were killed in 1995, and

her husband was killed in 1998. Diallo also claimed she was raped and beaten by the

men who killed her husband, and she was later arrested and falsely charged with

arson. Diallo further testified she fled to Guinea after her release from prison, and

eventually came to the United States in early 2002. 

The IJ considered Diallo’s application and found her lacking in credibility. The

IJ noted “[o]ne of the major issues in this case is [Diallo’s] identity in addition to her

citizenship and nationality.” The IJ based this finding on numerous factors. First, a

government investigation determined the birth certificate Diallo produced was a

forgery. Second, Diallo also presented an identity card that the IJ stated appeared to

have been altered to coincide with the information on the forged birth certificate.

Third, the IJ found Diallo’s testimony regarding her travels and arrival in the United

States was “general, vague, and meager[.]” Finally, the IJ reviewed records from

Greyhound Bus Line, upon which Diallo claimed to have traveled, and noted these

records contradicted Diallo’s accounts of her travel dates and whereabouts. Based

upon these factors, the IJ not only made an adverse credibility finding, but also found

Diallo had “failed to prove her time, place and manner of entry into the United States

[and] . . . [a]ccordingly . . . failed to show she filed for asylum within one year of

Appellate Case: 07-1237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374052
-3-

her arrival into the United States.” The IJ thus denied Diallo’s asylum claim due to

the untimeliness of the asylum application.

The IJ also denied Diallo’s requests for withholding of removal and CAT relief,

based upon the adverse credibility determination. Finally, the IJ found, even if Diallo

had credibly established past persecution, circumstances had materially changed in

Sierra Leone, and “the human rights situation has vastly improved since Sierra

Leone’s devastating civil war was officially declared over in January 2002.”

Accordingly, the IJ determined Diallo could not establish she would more likely than

not face persecution or torture if returned to Sierra Leone, thus precluding withholding

of removal or CAT relief. Diallo appealed this decision to the BIA, which affirmed

the IJ’s decision on all counts.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Where “[t]he BIA’s decision is the final decision of [the] agency . . . it is the

subject of our review.” Salkeld v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 804, 808 (8th Cir. 2005). “To

the extent, however, that the BIA adopted the findings or the reasoning of the IJ, we

also review the IJ’s decision as part of the final agency action.” Id. (citation omitted).

When we review a BIA determination regarding eligibility for asylum, the BIA’s

findings are reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. See Zheng v. Gonzales,

415 F.3d 955, 959 (8th Cir. 2005). The BIA’s findings regarding eligibility for

withholding of removal or CAT relief are also reviewed for substantial evidence. See

Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 413 (8th Cir. 2007). This is an “extremely

deferential standard of review[.]” Salkeld, 420 F.3d at 809. Under the substantial

evidence standard, the agency’s findings of fact “must be upheld unless the alien

demonstrates that the evidence he presented not only supports a contrary conclusion

but compels it.” Sultani v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation

omitted) (emphasis added). “This court defers to an immigration judge’s credibility

finding where the finding is supported by a specific, cogent reason for disbelief.”

Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations and internal

Appellate Case: 07-1237 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374052
-4-

quotation marks omitted). “[B]ecause the immigration judge is in the best position to

evaluate an alien’s testimony, his or her credibility determinations are to be given

much weight.” Id. (citation omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Asylum Review - Jurisdiction 

Diallo was required to “demonstrate[] by clear and convincing evidence that the

[asylum] application ha[d] been filed within 1 year after the date of [her] arrival in the

United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). This court lacks jurisdiction to review the

BIA’s finding that Diallo’s asylum application was not filed within one year of her

arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); see also Bejet Viali Al-Jojo

v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 823, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2005).

 To the extent Diallo’s argument could be characterized as a procedural due

process claim, this court has left open the possibility that such claims could qualify

as an exception to the jurisdictional bar in § 1158(a)(3). See Somakoko v. Gonzales,

399 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2005). However, Diallo has not asserted a procedural due

process claim. Additionally, for the reasons outlined in the following section, if

characterized as a due process claim, Diallo’s asylum arguments are still without

merit. As in Somakoko, even if Diallo’s claims sounded in due process, it would be

unnecessary to decide “the troubling question whether relief from an untimeliness

ruling may ever be granted on procedural due process grounds.” Id. 

We therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Diallo’s petition for review of the

BIA’s denial of her asylum petition. 

B. Credibility Determination

Diallo cites Kourski v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2004) for the

proposition that a falsified document, standing alone, cannot support an IJ’s adverse

credibility finding where there is no reason to believe the alien knew the document

Appellate Case: 07-1237 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374052
2

Diallo claims, “Oddly, the [IJ] . . . discounted the identity card because the

information therein matched the information found on Ms. Diallo’s birth certificate.”

There is nothing odd about this determination. Because the identity card appeared

altered, and matched the information on a forged birth certificate, it was not

unreasonable for the IJ to conclude both documents were false. 

-5-

was false, and no other grounds upon which to base the adverse credibility finding.

Although Kourski stands for this proposition, see id. at 1040, Diallo’s reliance on the

case is unavailing. With or without knowledge of the falsity of a counterfeit

identification document, the applicant must still confront the basic burden of

establishing her identity and nationality, which are legitimately in question. In

Diallo’s case, the IJ did not rely solely on the falsified certificate. Rather, the IJ noted

Diallo produced an identity card that appeared to have been altered to coincide with

the information on the forged birth certificate.2

 The IJ further found Diallo’s

testimony “general, vague, and meager[,]” and found records from Greyhound Bus

Line, upon which Diallo claimed to have traveled, contradicted Diallo’s accounts of

her travel dates and whereabouts. Moreover, the record supports the IJ’s

determination that Diallo’s testimony was vague. Diallo provided little explanation

regarding these matters, or the disparity between her claimed travel dates and the bus

line records. These evidentiary inadequacies also raise doubts regarding Diallo’s date,

place and manner of entry into the United States. These findings distinguish Diallo’s

case from Kourski, and provide substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility

determination. Although these aspects of her testimony do not necessarily compel an

adverse credibility determination, we were not present to evaluate Diallo’s demeanor

Appellate Case: 07-1237 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374052
3

Diallo also contends the forged birth certificate only related to her birth, age

and identity, and thus did not go to the heart of her asylum claim. For support, she

points to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Chen v. INS, 266 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir.

2001), vacated on other grounds by 537 U.S. 1016 (2002) , on remand to 326 F.3d

1316 (9th Cir. 2003). Chen holds that documents relating only to issues such as

identity and date of birth do not enhance a claim of persecution, and therefore

discrepancies in such documents cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility

determination. Id. We need not adopt or completely reject this proposition.

However, Diallo’s proof of her identity and nationality are fundamental, and when

called into question, Diallo must present adequate explanation or risk a lack of

credibility finding. Again, Diallo fails to recognize that the fake documents in her

case comprised only part of the basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

The false documents, combined with vague testimony and discrepancies in Diallo’s

travel records, undercut not only her identity and her nationality claim, but also the

alleged date she entered the country, as well as her overall credibility. 

-6-

and “great weight” must be given to the IJ’s determination.3

 We therefore uphold the

adverse credibility determination.

C. Changed Country Conditions

Even if the credibility determination were in error, substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s conclusion that changed country conditions preclude a finding of

future persecution or torture if Diallo is returned to Sierra Leone. To qualify for

withholding of removal, an alien “must show a clear probability [of persecution] in

the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See Mouawad, 485 F.3d at 411

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). To obtain CAT

relief, an alien must show he or she is “more likely than not” to suffer torture if

returned to the designated country of removal. Id. at 413. Although Diallo points to

aspects of the country reports that indicate her life in Sierra Leone will likely be

difficult, many aspects of the country reports support the BIA’s determination the

circumstances in Sierra Leone have significantly improved in the past few years. We

will not substitute our judgment for that of the BIA. Rather, the BIA’s determinations

Appellate Case: 07-1237 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374052
-7-

“must be upheld unless the alien demonstrates that the evidence [s]he presented not

only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it.” Sultani, 455 F.3d at 881 (citation

omitted) (emphasis added). The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION

The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the asylum

claim and denied as to withholding of removal and CAT relief.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1237 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/19/2007 Entry ID: 3374052