Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04055/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Mohamed Egal
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4055

___________

Mohamed Egal, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of *

the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 22, 2004 

Filed: October 26, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mohamed Egal, a Somalian citizen, petitions for review of an order of the

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

of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We grant Egal’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, and after carefully reviewing the record, we deny his petition. See

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

review). 

Appellate Case: 03-4055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2004 Entry ID: 1826191 
-2-

Specifically, the BIA’s finding of no past persecution is supported by

substantial evidence. See Hagi-Salad v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir.

2004) (defining persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s

determination that Egal did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.

See Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 798 (8th Cir. 2004) (applicant must

genuinely fear persecution and offer credible, specific evidence that a reasonable

person in his position would fear persecution if returned); Navarijo-Barrios v.

Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 561, 564 (8th Cir. 2003) (BIA may reasonably rely on State

Department’s assessment of current country conditions as they relate to the likelihood

of future persecution); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(i)(2004) (in cases where applicant has

not established past persecution, he has burden of showing that it would not be

reasonable for him to relocate, unless persecution is by a government or is

government-sponsored). 

Because we find that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Egal’s

request for asylum, his application for withholding of removal necessarily fails as

well. See Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard for

withholding of removal is more rigorous than standard for granting asylum). To the

extent Egal is challenging the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, we find no basis in the

record for such a claim. See Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 780-82 (8th Cir.

2004) (explaining qualification requirements for relief under CAT). 

Accordingly, we deny Egal’s petition. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2004 Entry ID: 1826191