Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02567/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02567-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Abubakar Aweis Sheikh
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Alberto Gonzales

is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft.

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2567

___________

Abubakar Aweis Sheikh, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales,1

 Attorney General *

of the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: June 24, 2005

 Filed: November 2, 2005 

___________

Before RILEY, BRIGHT, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Abubakar Aweis Sheikh (Sheikh), a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for

review of a final order of removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying Sheikh’s

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). Sheikh contends the IJ (1) erred in finding Sheikh not

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
2

Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows

for removal of an alien convicted after entry of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The INA defines an aggravated felony as a crime of violence

for which the term of imprisonment imposed is at least one year. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(F). 

3

Section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the INA allows for removal of an alien who has

been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).

-2-

credible, (2) abused her discretion in denying Sheikh’s application based on a single

misdemeanor conviction, (3) erred in finding Sheikh did not suffer past persecution

based on his clan membership, and (4) erred in failing to grant relief under the CAT.

We deny Sheikh’s petition. 

I. BACKGROUND

After entering the United States in May 1997, as a refugee, Sheikh received

lawful permanent resident status in July 1998. In 1999, Sheikh was convicted in

North Dakota of encouraging or contributing to the deprivation or delinquency of a

minor, a misdemeanor. As a result of Sheikh’s conviction, the former Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS) issued Sheikh a Notice to Appear, charging Sheikh

as being removable from the United States for having been convicted of an

aggravated felony.2

 The INS withdrew its aggravated felony charge and issued a new

charge against Sheikh, alleging he was removable for having been convicted of a

crime involving moral turpitude.3

 Sheikh then applied for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the CAT.

In his asylum application, Sheikh alleged he fears returning to Somalia because

of his membership in the Brava/Daktire minority clan. According to his application

for asylum, in March 1992, eight Somali militiamen armed with rifles broke down the

door to Sheikh’s family home and killed his father, sister, and brother-in-law. The

militiamen forced Sheikh and his father at gunpoint to lie on the ground in the

courtyard, and one man placed his boot on the back of Sheikh’s neck. The men then

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
-3-

looted the house. When the men saw Sheikh’s mother, they said, “Aren’t you the

woman with a shop in the market? Give us your money!” After Sheikh’s mother

gave money to the men, Sheikh heard his sister shouting followed by gunshots. As

Sheikh’s father ran toward the house, the men shot him in the back. The men “left

saying nothing but ‘[d]on’t move or we’ll kill you!’” Sheikh then went inside the

house and discovered his sister and brother-in-law had been killed. Sheikh believed

the militiamen attacked his family because of their minority clan membership and

because his mother was a business woman. Sheikh fears he will be killed if he returns

to Somalia “because the . . . militiamen . . . believe that [he is] going to take revenge

on them,” and because he is Bravian. 

The IJ held several hearings on Sheikh’s asylum application, during which

Sheikh testified he is the oldest of seven children, including a sister named Asha.

Asha and her husband lived with Sheikh and his parents in Somalia. Sheikh testified

about the incident described in his asylum application, when, at the outset of the civil

war in 1992, eight or nine members of the United Somali Congress (USC) broke

down the door to his family’s home, “looking for money and gold and everything you

got.” Sheikh testified the armed men shot and killed Asha and her husband. The men

also shot Sheikh’s father when he tried to rescue Asha. Sheikh’s father was taken to

the hospital and died nearly a month later. Sheikh testified he believed members of

the USC attacked his family because they knew the family “couldn’t defend

[them]selves,” and because “they knew that [Sheikh’s] mother was a business woman

and [his] father owned an expensive boat.”

Following the attack, Sheikh and his family stayed at a mosque for safety. A

few days later, Sheikh’s family fled to Yemen by boat, but Sheikh stayed in Somalia

until after his father’s death approximately one month later. After leaving Somalia,

Sheikh stayed in several refugee camps in Kenya from 1992 to 1997, and then Sheikh

came to the United States as a refugee. Sheikh testified he cannot return to Somalia

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
-4-

because he believes he would not be safe in any part of the country and the same men

who killed his family members would find and kill him. 

After arriving in the United States, Sheikh helped his mother and siblings,

including a sister named Asha, enter the United States. Sheikh’s mother, Addei

Mohamed Sheikh-Bakar (Sheikh-Bakar), arrived in the United States in December

2000. In her refugee application, Sheikh-Bakar stated her sister, Faduma Mohammed

Sheikh-Bakar, and her sister’s husband were shot and killed during the 1992 attack

on the family’s home in Somalia. Sheikh-Bakar’s refugee application did not mention

the death of Asha and Asha’s husband. 

Sheikh-Bakar submitted an affidavit in support of her son’s asylum application.

In her affidavit, Sheikh-Bakar stated that “[i]n March 1992, USC militiamen killed

my husband, daughter and son-in-law.” Sheikh-Bakar’s affidavit did not mention the

death of her sister and her sister’s husband. 

Sheikh-Bakar also testified before the IJ in support of her son’s application for

asylum. Sheikh-Bakar attempted to explain how Sheikh had a sister named Asha who

was killed during the attack on the family’s home in Somalia, as well as a sister

named Asha who came to the United States. Each bore the identical name: Asha

Aweis Sheikh-Vana. Sheikh-Bakar testified her husband had fathered a child with

another woman, and that child’s name was Asha. Accordingly, Sheikh-Bakar

testified Sheikh had two sisters named Asha, and it was Sheikh’s half-sister who was

killed in 1992. Sheikh-Bakar explained she did not mention the death of Asha and

Asha’s husband in her refugee application, because “[she] was forgetful and after the,

right after the civil war, [she] got sick and . . . didn’t feel well.” When asked why

Sheikh’s refugee application did not mention his aunt and her husband being killed

during the 1992 attack on the family’s home in Somalia, Sheikh-Bakar replied,

“[Sheikh] was very busy with his father but he was not aware at that time that

[Sheikh-Bakar’s] sister and her husband were also in the house.” 

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
-5-

The IJ denied Sheikh’s asylum claim on three alternative grounds. First, the

IJ found Sheikh and his mother were not credible. Second, the IJ denied Sheikh’s

application for asylum “as a matter of discretion because of [his] conviction,” finding

it significant Sheikh had sexual intercourse with a minor. Third, the IJ denied

Sheikh’s asylum claim on the merits. 

The IJ also denied Sheikh’s claim for withholding of removal, concluding

Sheikh failed to meet the higher burden of proof required for such relief. Finally, the

IJ denied Sheikh relief under the CAT, because Sheikh failed to prove it was more

likely than not he would be tortured by the government if removed to Somalia. The

BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. Thus, for purposes of our review, the

IJ’s decision constitutes the final agency determination. See Ismail v. Ashcroft, 396

F.3d 970, 974 (8th Cir. 2005). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Asylum and Withholding of Removal Claims

Section 208 of the INA gives the Attorney General discretion to grant asylum

to an individual who is a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). The INA defines a

“refugee” as an alien who is unwilling or unable to return to his or her country of

nationality “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account

of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An alien petitioning for asylum bears the burden of

proving past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(a). A well-founded fear is one that is “both subjectively genuine and

objectively reasonable.” Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1390 (8th Cir. 1993) (per

curiam).

We defer to an immigration judge’s finding regarding a petitioner’s credibility,

if that finding is supported by specific, cogent reasons. Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396

F.3d 999, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005). “It is well settled that an immigration judge is in the

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
-6-

best position to make credibility findings because he [or she] sees the witness as the

testimony is given.” Mayo v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation

omitted). “While minor inconsistencies and omissions will not support an adverse

credibility determination, inconsistencies or omissions that relate to the basis of

persecution are not minor but are at the heart of the asylum claim.” Kondakova v.

Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

Sheikh argues we should reverse the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because

the IJ “dwelled on minor inconsistencies between Sheikh’s refugee application and

his mother’s refugee application,” and “ignored Sheikh’s explanations for the

differences.” We disagree. The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by

multiple, material inconsistencies among Sheikh’s refugee papers, his testimony, his

asylum application, his mother’s refugee application, and his mother’s testimony. 

The IJ set forth a number of discrepancies, which the BIA adopted. First, the

IJ noted Sheikh’s refugee “application doesn’t mention the death of []his aunt and

uncle, despite the claim that they died in [Sheikh]’s home” in 1992 at the hands of the

militiamen. Additionally, the IJ observed that although Sheikh’s application stated

“his sister, Asha, and her husband were also killed[,] [h]is mother’s application

doesn’t mention the death of Asha and Asha’s husband.” The IJ found it “implausible

that both [Sheikh] and his mother didn’t mention all the deaths that occurred in their

home when the home was attacked and [Sheikh]’s father was shot.” 

The IJ also found inconsistencies between two sets of Sheikh’s refugee papers,

as well as inconsistencies between Sheikh’s refugee application and his testimony:

“Based on the[] two different versions of the same Refugee Case History Form . . . ,

this Court doesn’t know what to believe about who was killed in the house.

Furthermore, [Sheikh] has not adequately explained why he testified in Court that he

is the oldest of 7 children when his refugee application indicates that he is the 4th of

7 children.” 

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
-7-

The IJ next questioned Sheikh’s explanation with respect to his sister and halfsister, the “two Ashas.” The IJ found this aspect of Sheikh’s testimony incredible

because he “never testified at his first hearing as having two sisters named Asha,” and

“did not reference two Ashas in his application.” The IJ believed “this story was

made up in order to try [to] explain why his sister Asha, who allegedly died in

Somalia, later entered the United States with his mother as a refugee.” 

Finally, the IJ identified an inconsistency in the testimony regarding Sheikh’s

contact with his mother and other family members after they left Somalia. Sheikh

“testified that he didn’t know where his family members were until 1998. However,

his mother testified that after she left for Yemen by boat, she had contact with

[Sheikh] after 1 year. This would have been in 1993.” Although the IJ considered

this inconsistency “a lesser inconsistency if standing alone,” the IJ concluded “[w]hen

this inconsistency is taken into consideration with the other problems and credibility

issues . . . , the Court finds this inconsistency to be significant.” 

Sheikh’s asylum claim is predicated on his allegation members of the USC

attacked his family home and killed members of his family, and that allegation clearly

relates to “the heart of [his] asylum claim.” Kondakova, 383 F.3d at 796 (citation

omitted). Because the IJ made the adverse credibility findings based on specific,

cogent reasons, and the core of Sheikh’s persecution testimony was not credible, we

conclude substantial evidence supports the IJ’s ultimate determination Sheikh is not

eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Id. at 796-98. 

Further, on the merits, the IJ concluded Sheikh “failed to establish that the

harm his family suffered in Somalia was on account of a protected ground.” The men

who broke into Sheikh’s home demanded money, gold, and Sheikh’s father’s boat.

Such action was more likely motivated by the greed of thieves and murderers and was

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
-8-

not action based upon “persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A).

To the extent Sheikh challenges the IJ’s finding as a basis for removal that

Sheikh’s conviction under North Dakota law for encouraging or contributing to the

deprivation or delinquency of a minor involved moral turpitude, we conclude the IJ

did not abuse her discretion. Sheikh’s conviction, which involved having sexual

intercourse with a minor, is a crime of moral turpitude. See Marciano v. INS, 450

F.2d 1022, 1024-25 (8th Cir. 1971) (holding statutory rape is a crime of moral

turpitude within the meaning of deportation statute); see also Palmer v. INS, 4 F.3d

482, 484-85 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding a misdemeanor conviction for contributing to

the sexual delinquency of a minor is a crime involving moral turpitude); Castle v.

INS, 541 F.2d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1976) (holding “a man’s carnal knowledge of a

fifteen year old girl, not his wife, is so basically offensive to American ethics and

accepted moral standards as to constitute moral turpitude per se”).

B. CAT Relief

Sheikh also sought relief under the CAT. An alien is eligible for relief under

the CAT if he shows “it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if

removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Torture is

defined narrowly as an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment intentionally

inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a person acting in an official capacity. Id.

§ 208.18(a)(1) and (2). We review the BIA’s denial of relief under the CAT to

determine “whether the evidence was so compelling that a reasonable factfinder must

have found the alien entitled to relief.” Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 992 (8th

Cir. 2004).

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222
-9-

Sheikh presented no evidence other than the testimony and documents

discussed above to support his claim for relief under the CAT. Although the IJ’s

adverse credibility determination and adverse decisions on asylum and withholding

of removal are not determinative of a CAT claim, Sheikh has not met his burden

under the CAT of establishing it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the

Somalian government, or people acting on the government’s behalf, if he returned to

Somalia. For the reasons Sheikh failed to carry his burden for asylum and

withholding of removal, he likewise fails to carry his burden for relief under the CAT.

See Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572, 576 (8th Cir. 2005).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we deny Sheikh’s petition for judicial review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2567 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970222