Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02239/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02239-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mirko Mocevic
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2239

___________

Mirko Mocevic, *

*

Petitioner, * Petition for Review of

* Order of the Board of

v. * Immigration Appeals.

*

Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 17, 2008

Filed: June 23, 2008 (Corrected: 6/23/2008)

___________

Before GRUENDER, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Mirko Mocevic (“Mocevic”), petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the decision of an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Mocevic’s application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons

stated below, we deny the petition for review. 

Appellate Case: 07-2239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2008 Entry ID: 3445731
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Mocevic, a native of Yugoslavia and a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina

(“Bosnia”), entered the United States through New York in 1996 as a refugee. On

August 28, 2002, Mocevic was convicted in Missouri Circuit Court of the felony of

“attempted stealing over $750 by coercion,” and was placed on probation. In

December 2003, Mocevic admitted to immigration officials that in 1996, when he

sought entry into the United States as a refugee, he submitted false information

relating to his ethnicity and family relationship to a U.S. sponsor on his form

“Declaration for Classification as a refugee.” 

On December 22, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)

commenced removal proceedings against Mocevic. The DHS filed a Notice to Appear

(“NTA”) charging Mocevic with removability as: (1) an alien who by fraud or willful

misrepresentation procured admission into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182

(a)(6)(C)(I); and (2) an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude under §

1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Mocevic admitted to the allegations in the NTA and conceded

removability on both grounds. Mocevic, however, applied for asylum, withholding

of removal, and relief under CAT on the grounds that he suffered persecution as an

Orthodox Christian in a Muslim dominated part of Bosnia and was afraid to return to

Bosnia due to this past persecution.

On October 27, 2005, Mocevic appeared before an IJ for a merits hearing on his

application. Mocevic testified as to the persecution he suffered in Bosnia starting at

an early age and continuing until he left for the United States. At the hearing

Mocevic’s son John Mocevic, a U.S. Citizen, also offered testimony. 

In a written decision, the IJ denied Mocevic’s application and ordered Mocevic

removable on the grounds that he was an alien convicted of a crime of moral

turpitude, and that he procured admission to the United Sates by knowingly

Appellate Case: 07-2239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2008 Entry ID: 3445731
-3-

submitting false information on his refugee form. In denying Mocevic’s application,

the IJ found that Mocevic was not credible and that even if Mocevic were credible, he

would still deny Mocevic’s petition because Mocevic failed to meet his burden of

proof. The IJ reasoned that Mocevic’s testimony, even if credited, failed to establish

persecution or well-founded fear of persecution should he return to Bosnia, as

required for a grant of withholding of removal or relief under CAT. In addition, even

if Mocevic established his burden of proof for asylum, the IJ explained that he would

have denied Mocevic’s asylum application on discretionary grounds because Mocevic

obtained his initial entry into the United States by fraud. 

Mocevic appealed to the BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling and dismissed

Mocevic’s appeal holding that the IJ did not err in concluding that Mocevic failed to

meet his burden of proof to justify asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under

CAT. The BIA also ruled that Mocevic’s due process rights were not violated during

the hearing because Mocevic was given a full and fair opportunity to present his case

and rebut any contradictions. This appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

We must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

denial of Mocevic’s application. See Hanan v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 760, 763 (8th Cir.

2008) (addressing first whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial

of petitioner’s motion); Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 411 (8th Cir. 2007)

(same). Because Mocevic is removable as a “criminal alien,” our jurisdiction to

review Mocevic’s petition is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . , no

court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who

is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section

1182(a)(2) . . . .”); § 1252(a)(2)(D) (“Nothing in subparagraph . . . (C) . . . shall be

construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised

Appellate Case: 07-2239 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/23/2008 Entry ID: 3445731
-4-

upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . .”). Our

jurisdiction, however, does not extend to review of the agency’s findings of fact or

discretionary judgments, “which are insulated from judicial review.” Purwantono v.

Gonzales, 498 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2007). In determining whether an argument

advanced in a petition raises a constitutional claim or question of law, we look to the

“nature of the argument advanced in the petition.” Id. A petitioner may not create

jurisdiction by characterizing a factual question as a constitutional claim or question

of law. Garcia-Aguillon v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 848, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2008); Hanan,

519 F.3d at 763. This Court reviews de novo constitutional claims and questions of

law, which are properly raised in a petition for review. Mohamed v. Gonzales, 477

F.3d 522, 527 (8th Cir. 2007). 

On appeal, Mocevic argues that we have jurisdiction to review his petition

because he raises both a constitutional claim and a question of law. Mocevic argues

that he was denied due process because the IJ, in making an adverse credibility

determination, failed to give any consideration to evidence that rehabilitated his

credibility. Mocevic claims that the IJ failed to consider the totality of the

circumstances when making his credibility determination and based the determination

only on: (1) Mocevic’s prior offense of knowingly providing false statements on his

refugee form; and (2) his prior criminal conviction. 

Because “an allegation of wholesale failure to consider evidence implicates due

process,” we have jurisdiction to review Mocevic’s due process claim. Hanan, 519

F.3d at 764. A careful review of the IJ’s credibility determination, however, does not

support Mocevic’s claim that the IJ engaged in a wholesale failure to consider the

evidence relating to Mocevic’s credibility. In determining that Mocevic’s testimony

was not credible the IJ looked to several factors including the fact that Mocevic

knowingly gave false information in order to obtain refugee status and that his prior

felony “involved stealing and not being truthful.” The IJ also considered other

evidence relating to Mocevic’s credibility, including the testimony of his son and

Appellate Case: 07-2239 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/23/2008 Entry ID: 3445731
-5-

statements from Mocevic’s friends that were submitted to corroborate Mocevic’s

credibility. Indeed, the IJ supported his credibility finding with “specific, cogent

reasons for disbelief.” See Jalloh v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 894, 898 (8th Cir. 2005)

(“We will defer to the IJ’s credibility finding where the finding is supported by a

specific, cogent reason for disbelief.”). We therefore reject Mocevic’s due process

argument. 

Mocevic also argues that the BIA committed legal error by affirming the IJ’s

conclusion that Mocevic did not meet his burden of proof. Mocevic argues that his

testimony, describing several incidents in Bosnia where his life was threatened and

he was beaten and robbed because of his religion, established his burden of proof for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. Mocevic further argues that

“no reasonable fact finder could fail to find that [he] established past persecution,” and

that “the record as a whole shows that it is more likely than not that [he] will suffer

torture” if returned to Bosnia. Mocevic’s argument, however, is nothing more than

a “challenge to the IJ’s discretionary and fact-finding exercises cloaked as a question

of law.” See Garcia-Aguillon 524 F.3d at 850 (denying petitioner’s legal claim

because “it amount[ed] to nothing more than a challenge to the IJ’s discretionary and

fact-finding exercises cloaked as a question of law.”). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction

to review this claim. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we deny Mocevic’s petition for review. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2239 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/23/2008 Entry ID: 3445731