Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02921/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02921-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Madjiguene Thiam
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2921

___________

Madjiguene Thiam, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of 

v. * Order of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2007

Filed: August 10, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Madjiguene Thiam, a native and citizen of Senegal, seeks review of a final

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order acceding to the Immigration Judge's (IJ)

finding of removability and dismissing her appeal. A Notice to Appear was filed

against Thiam on November 14, 2003, charging her with being removable under INA

212(a)(6)(A)(i) (presence without admittance or parole), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).

On February 18, 2005, the IJ found that Thiam failed to establish that she was lawfully

present and therefore found her removable as charged. The BIA affirmed the IJ's

decision on July 7, 2006, and this petition followed.

Appellate Case: 06-2921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Entry ID: 3340110
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

It is undisputed that Thiam entered the United States lawfully on August 2,

2000. Before the IJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) presented evidence

that she subsequently departed on October 20, 2000. The issue before the IJ was

whether Thiam did, in fact, leave on October 20, 2000, and, if she did leave, whether

or not she returned to the United States after that date with any type of admission after

inspection or parole by an Immigration officer. DHS presented evidence that Thiam

had previously admitted to paying $500 to obtain a Social Security card through

fraudulent measures. This occurred when she was an unindicted co-conspirator in a

case, titled "Operation Gorgona." 

Thiam attempted to submit documentary evidence to the IJ but it was not timely

and its late submission was not permitted. However, the documents were accepted as

part of the record, Thiam testified about their contents and the facts contained therein

were referenced by the IJ in its opinion. Thiam maintains that she arrived in the

United States on August 2, 2000, and has never left. She claims that she gave her

passport and I-94 to another woman, who must have been the one who departed on

October 20, so that this woman could return to Senegal to deliver some gifts.

Thiam is married to a United States citizen and has two children. She claims

she received medical care in the United States for her pregnancy during the time that

DHS alleges she was out of the United States, including a doctor visit on October 24,

2000. The record shows that she kept her obstetric appointments in September,

October and November and gave birth in January 2001. 

Thiam also claims that the IJ erred in denying her request for a continuance in

the removal proceedings to allow for the adjudication of the Immigrant Visa Petition

filed on her behalf by her husband–a form of discretionary relief. The government

responds that although this issue was brought before the BIA and the BIA responded,

Appellate Case: 06-2921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Entry ID: 3340110
-3-

the administrative record and joint appendix are devoid of any such motion or ruling.

At the October 19, 2004, hearing before the IJ, Thiam did request that the matter be

reset due to a pending I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative).

The IJ determined that Thiam lacked credibility and was removable as charged.

The IJ further determined that Thiam was unable to establish by clear and convincing

evidence, in the face of the government's evidence, that she was lawfully admitted or

that she never left the United States. The IJ was persuaded in its determination at least

in part because of Thiam's involvement in multiple acts designed to defraud the

government and because he found that it was highly implausible that Thiam would

just hand over her passport and I-94 to another person for the purpose of delivering

gifts that could be transported by way of international mail. The BIA did not

summarily affirm, but in a short opinion determined that the IJ did not err in

determining Thiam failed to meet her burden and that she was not credible. 

II. DISCUSSION

"When the BIA adopts the IJ's decision, but adds reasoning of its own, we

review both decisions." Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710, 713 (8th Cir. 2006). We

review the order of removal using the substantial evidence standard and will reverse

only if "'it would not be possible for any reasonable fact-finder to come to the

conclusion reached by the administrator.'" Shahinaj v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1027, 1028

(8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir.

2004)). "We will defer to an IJ's credibility finding when it is supported by a specific,

cogent reason for disbelief." Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 999, 1003 (8th Cir.

2005). 

Thiam is unable to overcome her burden on appeal. There is substantial

evidence supporting the BIA's and the IJ's determinations in this case. Even though

Thiam testified that she attended her obstetric appointments during the months of

Appellate Case: 06-2921 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Entry ID: 3340110
1

Thiam argued for the first time at oral argument that the government failed to

meet its alleged burden of proving (1) not only departure on October 20, 2000, but

also (2) subsequent entry in a foreign port, citing In the Matter of T, 6 I&N Dec. 638

(BIA 1955). In Matter of T, a lawful permanent resident alien boarded a vessel and

traveled to Europe. Upon his arrival, he was detained because he lacked

documentation and was then returned to the United States after being refused entry at

various foreign ports. The BIA held that as a result he was not seeking entry into the

United States because he had been refused entry at the foreign ports and had thus

effectively never left. "Ordinarily, we do not consider an argument raised for the first

time on appeal." Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720, 725 (8th Cir. 2002). We

note, however, that we have no evidence of Thiam's denial of admission at a foreign

port, as would be required if the Matter of T analysis were to be relevant. And, were

this evidence to be submitted, it would be Thiam's burden to do so. In these removal

proceedings, Thiam had the burden to establish "by clear and convincing evidence,

that [she] is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to a prior admission." 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(B). 

-4-

October and November, nothing in the record belies the credible evidence that Thiam's

passport left the United States on October 20, 2000. Further, we agree that it is not

plausible that Thiam would have given her passport and I-94, her only forms of

identification, to a woman in order to deliver packages to Senegal. Thiam's previous

involvement in fraud also cuts against her credibility in the instant case. In the end,

regardless of our actual beliefs or determinations, there is substantial evidence to

support the agency's determinations.1

 We cannot say that Thiam's evidence was so

compelling that it would not be possible for any reasonable fact-finder to come to the

conclusion reached. 

Finally, even if we were to find that Thiam moved for a continuance before the

IJ (a filing we have failed to discover and Thiam has failed to produce), we lack

jurisdiction to entertain Thiam's claim. As it currently stands, we have held that

section 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of the IJ's discretionary denial of a

motion to continue. Ikenokwalu-White v. Gonzales, Nos. 05-3920, 06-2861, 2007 WL

1964645, at *4 & n.2 (8th Cir. July 9, 2007). 

Appellate Case: 06-2921 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Entry ID: 3340110
-5-

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Thiam's petition for review. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2921 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Entry ID: 3340110