Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01219/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01219-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Tsegaye G. Gebremedhin
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1219

___________

Tsegaye G. Gebremedhin, *

*

Petitioner, *

* On Appeal from the Board

v. * of Immigration Appeals.

*

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 10, 2004

Filed: June 28, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tsegaye Gebremedhin, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirmed an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and

denied his motion to remand for relief under the Convention Against Torture

(“Convention”). After reviewing record, we deny the petition for the reasons that

follow.

Gebremedhin argues that he should have been granted asylum based on his

membership in a particular social group. This argument fails. The IJ denied

Appellate Case: 03-1219 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781854 
-2-

Gebremedhin’s asylum application after finding that Gebremedhin was not credible

based on his submission of fraudulent documentation in support of his claims for

relief. Gebremedhin does not challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Because

the IJ provided specific, cogent reasons to support his adverse credibility finding, we

defer to this finding. See Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 987 (8th Cir.

2003). Further, Gebremedhin has not pointed to any evidence in the record that

compels reversal of the IJ’s finding that Gebremedhin failed to establish past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Menendez-Donis v.

Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Because

Gebremedhin failed to meet the lower burden of proof on his asylum claim, we find

that he consequently has failed to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal.

See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-933 (8th Cir. 2002).

Gebremedhin also argues the BIA should have remanded his case for

reconsideration under the Convention based on changed country conditions in

Ethiopia relating to the mistreatment of persons of Eritrean origin. This argument

also fails, as the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding Gebremedhin failed

to make a prima facie showing that he was eligible for such relief. See MargalliOlvera v. INS, 43 F.3d 345, 355 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review); 8 C.F.R.

§§ 208.16(c)(2) and (3). Much of the evidence Gebremedhin submitted to the BIA

in support of his motion to remand was available at the time of his hearing before the

IJ, and other evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of

Gebremedhin’s eligibility for relief under the Convention. Further, given

Gebremedhin’s previous submission of fraudulent documentation, the BIA did not

abuse its discretion in declining to consider additional documents purporting to be

Ethiopian government documents. 

We thus deny Gebremedhin’s petition for review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1219 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781854