Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02768/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02768-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Alida Malaj
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2768

___________

Alida Malaj, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2006 

Filed: July 12, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alida Malaj, an Albanian citizen, petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial

of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We deny the petition. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th

Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 

When an asylum decision is based on an adverse credibility finding, as it was

in this case, we generally defer to the IJ if the credibility finding is supported by

Appellate Case: 05-2768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066563
-2-

“specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.” See id. at 982. Upon careful review, we

conclude that the IJ provided such reasons.

We also conclude that Malaj failed to 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 reasonable

person in her position would fear persecution if returned), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1053

(2005). Malaj’s asylum claim thus fails, and her claim for withholding of removal--

which carries a more stringent burden of proof--necessarily fails as well. See EtaNdu, 411 F.3d at 986. To the extent her CAT claim is reviewable, we agree with the

BIA that Malaj presented no separate facts supporting CAT relief. See Rodriguez v.

Gonzales, 441 F.3d 593, 595 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Malaj’s remaining arguments provide no basis for granting her petition for

review, and accordingly we deny it. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066563