Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02036/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Roselor Jovial
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Alberto Gonzales has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2036

___________

Roselor Jovial, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review

* of an Order of the

Alberto Gonzales,1

 Attorney General * Board of Immigration Appeals.

of the United States, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: September 26, 2006

Filed: October 5, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roselor Jovial (Jovial) 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

Appellate Case: 04-2036 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2006 Entry ID: 2096491
2

Jovial 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-

Against Torture (CAT).2

 Jovial argues she suffered past persecution based on political

opinion, as evidenced by her membership in the “Party Nationale for Democrat,” and

by Ronald Kadav (Kadav) breaking into her apartment. Kadav is allegedly a known

criminal who was a member of the Famni Lavalas party, the party of then-President

Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Jovial also disputes the IJ’s adverse credibility finding

regarding the home invasion.

We review the denial of asylum under the substantial evidence standard and

will uphold the BIA’s findings “unless the evidence ‘[is] so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” See Vonhm

v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)). This standard applies to the IJ’s findings where the BIA

issues a summary affirmance. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 680 (8th

Cir. 2003) (summary affirmance by BIA adopts decision of IJ).

We conclude the IJ’s finding that Jovial did not show she suffered past

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

ground is supported by substantial evidence. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975,

990 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting isolated violence does not compel finding of persecution);

Hamzehi v. INS, 64 F.3d 1240, 1242 (8th Cir. 1995) (well-founded fear must be both

subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable). Jovial’s request for withholding of

removal also fails. 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: 04-2036 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2006 Entry ID: 2096491