Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03849/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03849-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Alexej Herbert Sesterheim
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3849

___________

Alexej Herbert Sesterheim, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of *

the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: August 5, 2004

Filed: August 5, 2004 

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alexej Sesterheim, a German citizen, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his

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

Against Torture (CAT). Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s conclusion that Sesterheim’s asylum

application was untimely and that he did not show extraordinary circumstances

relating to his delay in seeking asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ngure v.

Appellate Case: 02-3849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796255 
-2-

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 988-89 (8th Cir. 2004). We agree with the IJ that Sesterheim

was not entitled to withholding of removal, because he failed to demonstrate a clear

probability that he would be persecuted based on one of the enumerated grounds if

removed to Germany. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740,

744 (8th Cir. 2004) (for withholding of removal, alien must present evidence that it

is more likely than not he would be persecuted if returned to country of removal). We

also uphold the IJ’s separate denial of CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2004)

(under CAT, applicant has burden to show it is more likely than not that he would be

tortured if removed to proposed country of return).

Accordingly, we deny Sesterheim’s petition for review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-3849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796255