Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01105/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Eseye Rikitu
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1105

___________

Eseye Rikitu, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the *

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: August 5, 2004

Filed: September 1, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eseye Rikitu, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”)

denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and suspension of

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

In his application for relief, Rikitu claimed to have suffered past persecution

due to his religious and political beliefs, as well as his Oromo ethnicity, and further

stated that he feared future persecution on these same grounds if forced to return to

Ethiopia. Rikitu also asserted that his deportation would result in an extreme

Appellate Case: 03-1105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2004 Entry ID: 1805996 
-2-

hardship to his young son, Cameron, a nonmarital child born in the United States.

Following a hearing at which Rikitu and his brother testified, the IJ concluded that

Rikitu failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution on any protected basis. The IJ also concluded that Rikitu’s separation

from his son was an insufficient basis upon which to grant discretionary relief in the

form of suspension of deportation.

On appeal, Rikitu contends that the IJ erred in finding that he failed to

demonstrate his eligibility for either: (1) asylum and/or withholding of removal, or

(2) suspension of deportation. We lack jurisdiction to entertain the latter challenge.

See Martinez Ortiz v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 480, 481 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that an

IJ’s discretionary decision that an alien would not suffer extreme hardship if deported

is not subject to judicial review). With respect to the former, we find that the

evidence of record was not such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to

find Rikitu eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Habtemicael v.

Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 779 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the petition for review is

denied. 

We also note that during the pendency of this appeal, Rikitu has married a

United States citizen and that his new wife has filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien

Relative on his behalf. In light of these developments, Rikitu has filed a motion

before the BIA to reopen the proceedings in his case. Based upon the record, it

appears that both his I-130 petition and his motion to reopen are presently awaiting

decision. Although we express no opinion regarding the appropriate resolution of

these matters, we hasten to add our hope that it will be an expeditious one.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1105 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2004 Entry ID: 1805996