Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01426/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01426-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Mavis Ofori
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for

purposes of judicial review. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 679 n.1 (8th

Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1426

___________

Mavis Ofori, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: December 30, 2004

Filed: January 10, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mavis Ofori, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed without opinion an Immigration

Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT).1

 Ofori challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility

Appellate Case: 04-1426 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2005 Entry ID: 1853276 
-2-

determination, and argues that her case was not appropriate for an affirmance without

opinion.

Ofori’s argument regarding the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion is

unreviewable. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 981-88 (8th Cir. 2004) (decision

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

committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review).

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision on Ofori’s

asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See

Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of

review). The IJ discredited Ofori’s testimony about past persecution she suffered

because, among other things, some of her allegations were implausible and

unsupported by any documentary evidence. As the IJ’s credibility finding rested on

specific, cogent reasons for disbelief, we defer to the finding. See Nyama v.

Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 816-17 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference standard);

Rucu-Roberti v. INS, 177 F.3d 669, 670 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (upholding

adverse credibility determination where alien’s allegations were implausible and alien

failed to present corroborating evidence). In addition, because Ofori failed to meet

the burden of proof on her asylum claim, her application for withholding of removal

necessarily fails as well, see Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir.

1999) (withholding-of-removal standard is more difficult to meet than asylum

standard); and there is no basis in the record for relief under the CAT, see Ngure, 367

F.3d at 922-93 (discussing requirements for CAT relief). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1426 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2005 Entry ID: 1853276