Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02923/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02923-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Thierno Moussa Barry
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. 03-2923

___________

Thierno Moussa Barry, *

*

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of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]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: January 21, 2005

Filed: January 27, 2005

___________

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

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thierno Moussa Barry, who claims to be a citizen of Sierra Leone, 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, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary

departure.1

 On appeal, Barry challenges the IJ’s findings that he was not credible and

Appellate Case: 03-2923 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2005 Entry ID: 1860146 
-2-

did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution. He

also argues that the BIA’s affirmance-without-opinion procedure violated his due

process and equal protection rights.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision on Barry’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 Barry’s allegations of citizenship and persecution because

his testimony contained significant inconsistencies with his asylum application; he

submitted documents whose authenticity was questionable, and he failed to provide

originals of the documents; and his Guinean passport, which he alleged was false,

appeared valid. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 816-17 (8th Cir. 2004) (per

curiam) (deference standard); Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir.

2004) (IJ’s credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief

where alien’s testimony and asylum application were inconsistent); cert. denied, 73

U.S.L.W. 3287 (U.S. Jan. 10, 2005) (No. 04-584); Daiga v. INS, 183 F.3d 797, 798

(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (upholding adverse credibility finding where alien

offered inconsistent testimony and submitted questionable documents). 

In addition, because Barry failed to meet the burden of proof on his asylum

claim, his 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); we see no basis in the record

for relief under the CAT, see Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 992-93 (8th Cir. 2004)

(discussing requirements for CAT relief); and we reject Barry’s due process and equal

protection challenges to the BIA’s affirmance-without-opinion procedure, see Loulou

v. Aschroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708-09 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirmance without opinion does

not violate due process where alien received full hearing before IJ, detailed and

reasoned opinion from IJ, opportunity to present arguments to BIA, and decision from

BIA member); Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 152 F.3d 859, 862 (8th Cir. 1998) (to

Appellate Case: 03-2923 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2005 Entry ID: 1860146 
-3-

state equal protection claim, claimant must establish treatment differing from that

accorded to others similarly situated), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1142 (1999); Tang v.

Ashcroft, 92 Fed. Appx. 375, 377 (8th Cir. 2004) (unpublished per curiam)

(affirmance without opinion does not violate equal protection where there was no

basis for finding BIA treated alien differently from other similarly situated aliens).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2923 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/27/2005 Entry ID: 1860146