Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01816/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01816-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Aleksei Svedenko
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

At the asylum hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) indicated that she would

designate Russia as the country to which Svedenko was to be removed and would

designate Estonia as an alternative country of removal. (Svedenko had lived in

Estonia for 20 years before entering the United States, and had sought asylum based

on persecution in both Russia and Estonia.) 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1816

___________

Aleksei Svedenko, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of *

the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2004

Filed: April 29, 2004 

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aleksei Svedenko, a native of the former U.S.S.R.,1

 petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming an

Appellate Case: 03-1816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761976 
-2-

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum. For reversal,

Svedenko argues that the BIA clearly erred in affirming without an opinion, that the

IJ wrongly decided the issues of past persecution and his credibility, and that he thus

was denied due process. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition.

We reject Svedenko’s challenge to the summary affirmance procedures the BIA

invoked, see Loulou v. Aschroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirmance

without opinion does not violate alien’s due process rights), and we conclude that the

denial of Svedenko’s application is supported by substantial evidence in the record

as a whole, see Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 919 (8th Cir. 2004) (“the

evidence must be such that it would be possible for a reasonable fact-finder to reach

the same conclusions”). Specifically, we defer to the IJ’s adverse credibility findings,

because the IJ explained that Svedenko’s testimony lacked specificity and was

contradictory and uncorrobated. See Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597-98

(8th Cir. 2002) (court of appeals defers to IJ’s credibility findings where findings are

supported by specific, cogent reason for disbelief; adverse credibility findings were

supported by substantial evidence where asylum applicant failed to provide

documentary evidence to support claim, gave conflicting testimony, and failed to

authenticate any of his testimony). We find substantial evidence also supports the

IJ’s alternative finding that, aside from the credibility issue, Svedenko did not show

he suffered past persecution. See Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 787 (8th

Cir. 2002) (defining persecution). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761976