Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02438/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02438-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Molla Abdi
Petitioner
John D. Ashcroft
Respondent

Document Text:

1

The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for

purposes of judicial review. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 679 n.1 (8th

Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2438

___________

Molla Abdi, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the 

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2005 

Filed: January 12, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Molla Abdi, a citizen of Ethiopia, 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, relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure.1

 

Appellate Case: 03-2438 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2005 Entry ID: 1854497 
-2-

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision on Abdi’s

asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See

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

review). The IJ discredited Abdi’s allegations of persecution because his testimony

was general and meager, and contained significant inconsistencies with his asylum

application. We defer to this credibility finding. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d

812, 816-17 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference standard); Kondakova v.

Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir. 2004) (IJ’s credibility finding was supported

by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief where alien’s testimony and asylum

application were inconsistent), petition for cert. filed, 73 U.S.L.W. 3287 (U.S. Oct.

27, 2004) (No. 04-584). In addition, because Abdi failed to meet the burden of proof

on his asylum claim, his application for withholding of removal necessarily fails as

well, see Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir. 1999)

(withholding-of-removal standard is more difficult to meet than asylum standard); we

see no basis in the record for relief under the CAT, see Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d

975, 992-93 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing requirements for CAT relief); and we lack

jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f) (no

court shall have jurisdiction over appeal from denial of voluntary departure),

1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review “any judgment” regarding

grant of voluntary-departure relief).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2438 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2005 Entry ID: 1854497