Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02944/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02944-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Ali Yusuf Mire
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, 680

(8th Cir. 2003).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2944

___________

Ali Yusuf Mire, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 24, 2006

Filed: October 27, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ali Yusuf Mire (Mire) 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

 Mire argues the BIA exceeded its authority by affirming

without opinion the IJ’s decision. He also disputes the IJ’s adverse credibility finding,

arguing the IJ both failed to find any discrepancies in his testimony at the most recent

Appellate Case: 05-2944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2006 Entry ID: 2104094
2

Mire presents no argument on appeal regarding the denial of CAT relief; thus,

we need not consider that claim. See Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir.

2005).

-2-

hearing and focused “instead on the past fraud committed against the Government.”

Mire further maintains the IJ erred in finding Mire did not have a well-founded fear

of future persecution based on an imputed political opinion. Specifically, Mire

asserts the IJ failed to recognize that because Mire would resist joining a clan-based

militia if he were returned to Somalia, the clan would impute to him an adverse

political opinion.2

We conclude Mire’s arguments related to his credibility are irrelevant because

even assuming the truth of his testimony, the IJ’s finding that Mire did not show he

had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground is

supported by substantial evidence. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915,

917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (this court must uphold factual findings if they are supported

by substantial evidence in the record, meaning “the evidence must be such that it

would be possible for a reasonable fact-finder to reach the same conclusions”). In

particular, there was no evidence Mire’s possible recruitment in the militias would be

for any reason other than to fill the ranks of the militias. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 479-80, 482-84 (1992) (forced recruitment by guerrilla organization

does not necessarily equate with persecution on account of political opinion). Mire’s

request for withholding of removal thus fails as well. See Regalado-Garcia v. INS,

305 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2002) (withholding-of-removal standard is more rigorous

than asylum standard).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2006 Entry ID: 2104094