Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03697/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03697-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Talia Joseph
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3697

___________

Talia Joseph, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of

* an Order of the Board

Alberto Gonzales, * of Immigration Appeals.

*

Respondent. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2007

Filed: March 15, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Talia Joseph, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of an order of

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

immigration judge (IJ), denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Joseph also requests a stay of

deportation. 

We first hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual determination

that Joseph’s asylum application was untimely. See Yakovenko v. Gonzales, No. 05-

Appellate Case: 05-3697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2007 Entry ID: 3288641
-2-

4123, 2007 WL 542233 at *3 (8th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) (holding that a finding of

untimeliness is a factual finding shielded from our review by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3));

see also Tolego v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 763, 766 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[T]his court lacks

jurisdiction to review either the IJ’s determination that the asylum application was not

timely filed or the Attorney General’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of

changed circumstances.”). Also, because Joseph does not allege a legal error or a

constitutional violation such as a denial of due process, her asylum claim does not fit

within the limited jurisdictional grant contained in the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L.

No. 109-13, Div. B, § 106(a)(1)(A)(iii), 119 Stat. 231, 310 (2005) (codified in relevant

part at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and (D)). 

With respect to Joseph’s requests for withholding of removal and CAT relief,

we note that the IJ found Joseph not credible and expressly denied all forms of relief

based on this finding. The IJ also listed various alternative and specific reasons for

denying relief. For example, the IJ listed as an alternative ground for denying

withholding of removal the fact that Joseph alleged persecution motivated by her

refusal to participate in illegal activity and not based on her political views or her

membership in a protected group. Notwithstanding these alternative grounds for

denying relief, it remains clear that the IJ expressly denied all forms of relief based on

the general conclusion that Joseph’s testimony was not credible and her story was

unbelievable. 

The BIA, upon review, held that Joseph failed to demonstrate that the adverse

credibility finding was clearly erroneous. We owe considerable deference to this

underlying credibility determination and must affirm “unless the evidence compels a

conclusion to the contrary.” Kenyeres v. Ashcroft, 538 U.S. 1301, 1306 (2003).

Here, the credibility determination enjoyed substantial support, the IJ carefully

enumerated specific and cogent reasons for disbelieving Joseph, and the record does

not compel a contrary conclusion. Given the breadth of the adverse credibility

determination in this case, it precludes both forms of requested relief. See, e.g.,

Appellate Case: 05-3697 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2007 Entry ID: 3288641
-3-

Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that where

withholding of removal and CAT claims were “based on the same discredited

testimony, the BIA properly concluded that the adverse credibility finding is fatal to

all . . . claims”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Joseph’s request for

a stay of deportation is also denied.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3697 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2007 Entry ID: 3288641