Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02172/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Sara Kassa Kebede
Petitioner
Michael Tesfaye Yigezu
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2172

___________

Sara Kassa Kebede; Michael Tesfaye *

Yigezu, *

*

Petitioners, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: December 11, 2006

 Filed: April 2, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sara Kassa Kebede entered the United States on an Ethiopian passport in July

2001 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT) on behalf of herself and her son, Michael Tesfaye Yigezu.

After an evidentiary hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding that

Kebede’s testimony as to past persecution by the Ethiopian government was not

credible and, even if credible, did not establish either past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution if she and her son are removed to Ethiopia. The

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) assumed without deciding that Kebede’s

Appellate Case: 06-2172 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294443
-2-

testimony was credible and affirmed the IJ’s decision on the merits. Petitioners seek

judicial review of the BIA’s final agency action. We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners first argue the BIA committed reversible error when it failed to

review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. We review the BIA’s final agency action,

not alternative rulings of the IJ that were not reviewed by the BIA nor necessary to its

decision. See Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2006).

Occasionally, the BIA’s failure to address a disputed credibility issue will leave us

unable to discern the BIA’s analysis, as in El-Sheikh v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 643, 648

(8th Cir. 2004). Then, of course, we must remand. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,

16-17 (2002). But here, the BIA assumed petitioners’ testimony was credible in

finding insufficient proof of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution. Therefore, we review only the BIA’s persecution analysis. 

Petitioners next argue that Kebede presented sufficient credible, corroborated,

detailed evidence of past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution.

We review the BIA’s contrary findings under the substantial evidence standard,

upholding the agency’s decision unless the evidence “was so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). 

Kebede testified that, beginning in 1997, she supported an opposition political

party, the All-Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO), now named the All-Ethiopia

Unity Party (AEUP). In February 1999, while attending a peaceful AAPO rally in

support of its imprisoned leader, Professor Asrat Woldeyes, Kebede was arrested by

police and detained for three days. Though not beaten or physically harmed, the

authorities denied her food, forced her to sleep on a dirty cement floor, and warned

that she would be detained again if she continued to participate in AAPO meetings.

For the next two years, she was harassed at work by her boss about her AAPO

involvement and questioned periodically at her home by the police. 

Appellate Case: 06-2172 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294443
-3-

In January 2001, Kebede received an Ethiopian diplomatic passport to visit her

husband, who was serving as First Secretary of the Ethiopian embassy in Sudan. She

returned to Ethiopia in March. In June, the ministry of foreign affairs issued her a visa

to visit her mother in the United States. In a September phone conversation, her

husband said he had been recalled to Ethiopia for supporting the opposition wing of

the ruling party. Kebede believes he is currently in hiding in the Ethiopian

countryside. Kebede has two brothers who remain in Ethiopia; one lives in her house

and reports that police have asked him the whereabouts of Kebede and her husband.

Kebede’s mother returned to Ethiopia for two months without incident in 2003. 

The BIA found that this testimony, supported generally by the testimony of

other family members and communications from family members and AEUP officers

in Ethiopia, failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution. After careful review of the administrative record as a whole, we

conclude that substantial evidence supports this decision. “It is a well-established

principle that minor beatings and brief detentions, even detentions lasting two or three

days, do not amount to [past] political persecution, even if government officials are

motivated by political animus.” Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th

Circuit 2004); see Shoaira v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 837, 844 (8th Cir. 2004). Nor did

Kebede demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. She remained in

Ethiopia for two years following her arrest and detention, obtained a diplomatic

passport to visit her husband in Sudan, and then was granted a visa to travel to the

United States. Other family members have lived in Ethiopia for many years, and

Kebede’s mother recently visited family members and the family home without

incident. See Al Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 743-44 (8th Cir. 2004). On this

record, the denial of asylum must be affirmed.

Finally, petitioners argue that the BIA erred when it failed to analyze separately

their claims for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. We disagree.

Because the persecution standard for withholding of removal is more rigorous, a

Appellate Case: 06-2172 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294443
-4-

petitioner who fails to prove eligibility for asylum cannot meet the standard for

withholding of removal. Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir. 2005).

Though relief under the CAT turns on the likelihood of future torture, rather than a

well-founded fear of future persecution, “separate analysis is required only when there

is evidence that the alien might be tortured for reasons unrelated to her claims for

asylum and withholding of removal . . . .” Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572, 576 (8th

Cir. 2005). There was no such evidence here.

For these reasons, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2172 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294443