Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01867/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01867-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Tendayi Tafadzwa Mareya
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1867

___________

Tendayi Tafadzwa Mareya, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * 

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2006

Filed: September 11, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tendayi Mareya, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the decision of the

immigration judge (IJ), denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

We first hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that

Mareya’s asylum application was barred as untimely filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)

(“[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney

General under [8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)]”); Tolego v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 763, 766 (8th

Appellate Case: 05-1867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2006 Entry ID: 2087757
-2-

Cir. 2006) (“this court lacks jurisdiction to review either the IJ’s determination that

the asylum application was not timely filed or the Attorney General’s decision

rejecting the applicant’s complaint of changed circumstances”). 

With respect to Mareya’s requests for withholding of removal or CAT relief,

his own testimony showed that neither he nor any immediate family member was

politically active; he never suffered harm in Zimbabwe based upon his social group

or political opinion; and members of his immediate family were able to travel and live

in Zimbabwe relatively safely. By contrast, his testimony supporting his claim of

feared persecution was vague and speculative. We conclude that the evidence was not

so compelling that a reasonable factfinder would be bound to find the requisite

probability of persecution. Thus, the BIA’s denials of withholding of removal and

CAT relief are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Wijono v.

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 872, 874 (8th Cir. 2006) (applicant seeking withholding of

removal had burden to show clear probability of persecution; to overcome substantialevidence review standard, applicant must show that no reasonable factfinder could fail

to find requisite probability of persecution; independent analysis of CAT claim is not

required if it was based upon same factual basis as withholding-of-removal claim).

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2006 Entry ID: 2087757