Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01712/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Helen Wolde
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1712

___________

Helen Wolde, *

*

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John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED]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 5, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Helen Wolde, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s

(“IJ’s”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under

the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Wolde contends that (1) the BIA’s

decision to affirm without opinion not only violated her right to due process, but

constituted an abuse of discretion; and (2) the IJ erroneously determined that she

failed to establish the requisite well-founded fear of persecution. After careful review

of the record, see Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 779 (8th Cir. 2004)

(standard of review), we deny the petition.

Appellate Case: 03-1712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796204 
-2-

In view of this court’s precedent, Wolde’s various challenges to the BIA’s

streamlining procedures are not well-taken. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975,

983-88 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding, after lengthy analysis, that the BIA’s decision to

issue an affirmance without opinion is not subject to judicial review); Loulou v.

Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708-09 (8th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the BIA’s

streamlined review procedure does not violate an alien’s constitutional right to due

process). Moreover, we find no error in the IJ’s factual determination that Wolde

failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Although Wolde claimed

to fear future persecution on the basis of her membership in the Coalition of

Ethiopian Democratic Forces (COEDF), the IJ offered specific and cogent reasons for

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

(noting the deference owed to an IJ’s credibility finding). Wolde was unable to

accurately testify regarding the details of COEDF’s operations in the United States,

including whether it maintained a website, published a newsletter, or even required

its members to pay dues. In fact, while she acknowledged that the COEDF issues

membership cards, Wolde failed to produce her own. We have considered the

remainder of Wolde’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796204