Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02014/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John D. Ashcroft
Respondent
Chen Shi
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Shi does not appeal from the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal, voluntary

departure, and suspension-of-deportation relief.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2014

___________

Chen Shi, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2004

Filed: July 27, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chen Shi, a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, voluntary departure, and suspension of deportation, and

finding that Shi filed a frivolous asylum application.1

 On appeal, Shi argues that the

BIA’s decision to affirm her case without opinion did not comply with the regulations

Appellate Case: 03-2014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792495 
-2-

governing affirmance-without-opinion procedures; that the IJ’s credibility

determination was in error; and that the IJ’s finding that her asylum application was

frivolous was not supported by the evidence. After careful review of the record, we

deny the petition in part and grant it in part. 

Initially, we note that Shi’s argument regarding the BIA’s decision to affirm

her case without opinion is unreviewable. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3879, 2004

WL 1087149, at *3-*9 (8th Cir. May 17, 2004) (finding that BIA’s decision whether

to employ affirmance-without-opinion procedure in particular case is committed to

agency discretion and not subject to judicial review).

We conclude that the BIA’s decision on Shi’s asylum application is supported

by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft,

360 F.3d 915, 918-19 (8th Cir. 2004). Specifically, the IJ discredited Shi’s testimony

about past persecution she suffered, and we defer to that credibility finding because

it was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. See Nyama v. Ashcroft,

357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference standard).

We conclude, however, that the IJ’s stated reasons for finding Shi’s asylum

application frivolous--Shi failed to explain why she had waited three years to file for

asylum, had withdrawn and then reapplied for asylum, and had presented

documentary evidence for the first time at her asylum hearing--do not meet 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(d)(6) and 8 C.F.R. § 208.20 (2003)’s requirement that an asylum application

may be found frivolous only if the alien knowingly made material fabrications in his

or her asylum application.

Accordingly, we deny the petition as to the denial of asylum, grant the petition

as to the frivolousness finding, and reverse the frivolousness determination.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792495