Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02153/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yawo Elesesi Amenuvor
Petitioner
John Ashcroft
Respondent

Document Text:

1

The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for

purposes of judicial review. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 679 n.1 (8th

Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2153

___________

Yawo Elesesi Amenuvor, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2004

Filed: December 10, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Yawo Elesesi Amenuvor, a citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed without opinion an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum and related relief.1

 Amenuvor challenges

the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and argues that his case was not appropriate

for an affirmance without opinion.

Appellate Case: 03-2153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2004 Entry ID: 1843219 
-2-

Initially, we note that Amenuvor’s argument regarding the BIA’s decision to

affirm his case without opinion is unreviewable. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d

975, 981-88 (8th Cir. 2004) (finding that BIA’s decision whether to employ

affirmance-without-opinion procedure in particular case is committed to agency

discretion and not subject to judicial review).

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision on

Amenuvor’s asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record

as a whole. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004)

(standard of review). Specifically, the IJ discredited Amenuvor’s testimony about

past persecution he suffered, and we defer to that credibility finding because it was

supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d

812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference standard). In addition, because

Amenuvor failed to meet the burden of proof on his asylum claim, he failed to meet

the higher burden for withholding of removal. See Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d

551, 555 (8th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. Amenuvor moved for a stay of deportation

before his voluntary-departure period expired, and we therefore deem this court’s

grant of his unopposed motion to include a stay of his voluntary-departure period as

well. See Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 606, 616 (8th Cir. 2004).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2153 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2004 Entry ID: 1843219