Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03144/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Merian Cowens
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3144

___________

Merian Cowens, formerly known as *

Meriam Semon, *

*

Petitioner, *

* On Appeal from the Board

v. * of Immigration Appeals.

*

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2004

Filed: August 13, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Merian Cowens is a twenty-four-year-old single female, who is a native and

citizen of Ethiopia. She left Ethiopia and entered the United States illegally on or

around December 15, 1998. Petitioner claims that she and her family have been

persecuted because they are Eritrean and because of her father’s role in the war

between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Removal proceedings were commenced on April 13,

2001. At the Master Calendar hearing on June 19, 2001, Cowens was found

removable, but the hearing was continued for consideration of her application for

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

Appellate Case: 03-3144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2004 Entry ID: 1799245 
-2-

After an evidentiary hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the requested relief,

finding that Petitioner had not provided sufficient credible evidence to support her

claims. Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”), which summarily affirmed.

We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, see INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and will reverse only if the evidence was “so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution.” Id. at 483-84. We “defer[] to an immigration judge’s credibility

finding where the finding is supported by a specific, cogent reason for disbelief.”

Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotations and citation

omitted).

On appeal, Petitioner argues that the IJ’s credibility finding rested on broad

assumptions and that he did not give specific, cogent reasons to support his finding.

Petitioner also argues that the IJ erred in holding that she had not met her burden of

proof through the introduction of corroborating evidence. She insists that

corroborating evidence was not needed and that she provided sufficient evidence to

establish her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture. 

After reviewing the record, however, we find that the IJ’s decision denying

Petitioner relief was supported by substantial evidence. Regarding credibility, the IJ

gave specific, cogent reasons for his disbelief, noting a number of inconsistencies and

implausibilities in Petitioner’s testimony and other evidence, including: 1) that her

birth certificate was a counterfeit or forgery; 2) that she was inconsistent regarding

whether it was one or two men who raped her; 3) that she was inconsistent regarding

when her boyfriend died; 4) that it was implausible that she traveled from Ethiopia

to the United Kingdom to Mexico and then to the United States without ever being

asked any questions regarding her lack of documentation or her identity; 5) that she

Appellate Case: 03-3144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2004 Entry ID: 1799245 
1

For instance, when confronted with her inconsistent testimony regarding when

her boyfriend died (she testified that it was the day after the attack but her asylum

application said it was “a few weeks” after the attack), she explained that her

boyfriend had died the day after the attack, but she did not find this out until she

spoke to the boyfriend’s father a few weeks after the attack. However, this does not

explain why her asylum application, filed many months after the attack, would

contain the statement that the boyfriend had died “a few weeks” after the attack. 

-3-

had made absolutely no effort to contact her mother and uncle, her closest living

relatives, who could give corroboration to her story and identity; and 6) that one of

her recent applications for employment contained information that contradicted her

testimony. We also find that, when confronted with these inconsistencies and

implausibilities, Petitioner’s explanations were not always convincing.1

Likewise, the IJ did not err in finding that the Petitioner failed to provide

sufficient corroborating evidence. While Petitioner is correct to point out that

credible testimony supported by reasonable explanations for lack of corroborative

evidence can sustain a claim for asylum, see Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 289-90 (2d

Cir. 2000), it was precisely because Petitioner’s testimony contained so many

inconsistencies and implausibilities that the IJ sought additional evidence to

corroborate her story. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004).

The IJ was therefore correct to hold that Petitioner failed to meet her evidentiary

burden to establish eligibility for asylum or other relief. 

Accordingly, Cowens’s petition for review is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3144 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/13/2004 Entry ID: 1799245