Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02091/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omar Finnar Abdirahman
Petitioner
John Ashcroft
Respondent

Document Text:

1

Abdirahman does not raise the denial of his application for relief under the

Convention Against Torture. See Hasalla v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.

2004). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2091

___________

Omar Finnar Abdirahman, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the *

United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: September 15, 2004

Filed: September 20, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Omar Finnar Abdirahman, who claims to be a Somali citizen, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of

removal.1

 In February 1999 Abdirahman attempted to enter the United States using

a Kenyan passport issued in another name, and he thereafter applied for asylum on

Appellate Case: 03-2091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812870 
2

Because the names of the clans were spelled in various ways in the

administrative transcript, we have used the spellings found in State Department

information. 

-2-

the basis of membership in a particular social group--the Asharaf clan--alleging he

feared that if he returned to Somalia he would be killed by Ogadeen clan members

whom he could identify as his brother-in-law’s murderers.2

 Having carefully

reviewed the record, we deny the petition. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360

F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). 

Abdirahman raises numerous challenges to the IJ’s adverse credibility findings,

relying often on statements--some of which are taken out of context, or are incorrect--

from a manual prepared by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for

training asylum officers. We find such reliance misplaced. Cf. Prokopenko v.

Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 941, 944 (8th Cir. 2004) (it is doubtful that internal agency

memorandum could bind INS or confer substantive legal benefits on aliens). We

agree with the BIA that the IJ’s reasoning is “not without its weaknesses,” but

nonetheless we find that the IJ gave multiple valid reasons for finding Abdirahman’s

testimony not credible and for discounting the affidavits offered by Abdirahman from

two Somalis. See id. at 945 (when IJ has articulated specific and cogent reasons for

discrediting petitioner, credibility determination deserves deference; IJ may properly

request corroborating evidence if alien’s credibility is in question); cf. EscuderoCorona v. INS, 244 F.3d 608, 612 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding no reversible error in

decision to grant little weight to affidavit because, inter alia, no other evidence

existed corroborating petitioner’s assertions about living in California during period

at issue, and petitioner could have called her mother as witness on issue but did not).

Because we defer to the IJ’s credibility findings, Abdirahman’s arguments

about the IJ’s alternative findings regarding the merits and discretionary denial of

asylum need not be considered; and because his asylum claim fails, his claim for

Appellate Case: 03-2091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812870 
-3-

withholding of removal necessarily fails as well. See Lopez-Zeron v. U.S. Dep’t of

Justice, 8 F.3d 636, 638 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard for withholding of

removal is more difficult to meet than standard for asylum). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2091 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812870