Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01782/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Tilahun Mengesha
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1782

___________

Tilahun Mengesha, *

*

Petitioner, * Petition for Review of an 

* Order of the Board of

v. * Immigration Appeals.

*

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2004

Filed: May 19, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tilahun Mengesha, an Ethiopian 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. After careful review of the

record, see Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004)

(standard of review), we deny the petition. 

We defer to the IJ’s credibility findings because they were based on specific

inconsistencies in the record, and like the BIA, we find that the inconsistencies cannot

be explained by the factors upon which Mengesha seeks to rely. See Loulou v.

Appellate Case: 03-1782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2004 Entry ID: 1768656 
-2-

Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 709-10 (8th Cir. 2003) (deferring to IJ’s credibility findings

that are supported by specific, cogent reasons; upholding findings that were based

partly on material inconsistencies in Ethiopian asylum applicant’s testimony),

amended by, No. 02-3004, slip op. (8th Cir. Apr. 28, 2004). 

Because the IJ’s credibility findings are entitled to deference, we agree that

there was no basis for finding past persecution under the post-Mengistu government,

cf. Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2002) (applicant is entitled to

presumption of well-founded fear of future persecution if past persecution is shown),

and that Mengesha failed to demonstrate a fear of future persecution, see Feleke v.

INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997) (well-founded fear must be subjectively

genuine and objectively reasonable). Even if Mengesha belonged to the All Amhara

People’s Organization (AAPO) and was warned several times not to participate in

anti-government activities, when the IJ issued his decision Mengesha had not been

in Ethiopia for five years. Cf. Yuk v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1222, 1235 (10th Cir. 2004)

(unfulfilled threats are properly considered in determining if petitioner has reasonable

fear of future persecution, but length of time since threat was received diminishes its

present significance). Further, Mengesha testified that he had not been an AAPO

leader in Ethiopia and his AAPO activities in America had been minimal, and State

Department reports indicated AAPO members who renounced violence were not

being harassed. Cf. Feleke, 118 F.3d at 598-99 (petitioner showed some intolerance

of opposition views in Ethiopia, but did not show objectively reasonable threat of

persecution to members in his group who had not advocated violence or participated

in former terrorist regime, or egregious group persecution so as to lessen amount of

evidence of individualized persecution required). Finally, because we agree with the

IJ’s decision as to asylum, we also uphold the IJ’s decision as to withholding of

removal. See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard for

withholding of removal is more onerous than asylum standard). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2004 Entry ID: 1768656