United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1311

___________

Hesham Hassanein, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of *

the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2004

Filed: August 16, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Hesham Hassanein, an Egyptian citizen, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an immigration judge

(IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3), and

for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(2). We

deny the petition.

 On petition of his father, who was a lawful permanent resident of the United

States, Hassanein entered this country in January 1991, with authorization to remain

until July 1991. He stayed beyond that date and in 1998 applied for an adjustment
-2-

of status, seeking to become a lawful permanent resident. In 1999, the Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS) denied the application, finding that Hassanein had

misrepresented that his father, who had died in 1996, was alive. In 2000, the INS

filed a notice of removal. At a removal hearing, Hassanein admitted that he had

overstayed his visa. Hassanein then filed an application for withholding of removal

and for relief under CAT, alleging that he would be persecuted and tortured if he

returned to Egypt because of his membership in a political party. 

At a hearing before an IJ, Hassanein testified that he feared persecution and

torture if he returned to Egypt because he was a member of the Socialist Labor Party,

which he stated was an opposition party the Egyptian government had banned in

2000. Although documentary evidence indicated that the party was founded in 1978,

Hassanein claimed he joined the party in 1976 while he was a student in Egypt. He

testified that, because of his membership in the party, in 1980 he had been arrested,

threatened, and detained for one day in a security office and, after the detention, had

been questioned on other occasions. He further testified that because of membership

in the party, in 1980 the Egyptian government had arrested, detained, and mistreated

his uncle and in 1987 had arrested, detained, and mistreated his cousin. Hassanein

claimed that while in the United States, he joined the Minnesota chapter of the party,

which had four or five members. However, he had no documentation to corroborate

his membership in the party in Egypt or in the United States. He also admitted that

on his 1998 application for adjustment of status he did not indicate that he was a

member of the party and conceded that he had procured and submitted a forged

affidavit of his deceased father in support of the application.

After considering Hassanein’s testimony and other evidence, including State

Department reports on Egypt, the IJ denied relief. The IJ found that Hassanein lacked

credibility, noting, among other things, the fraud in connection with his adjustment

application. The IJ stated that Hassanein may have been able to overcome his
-3-

credibility problem had he presented verifiable, objective evidence to support his

persecution claim, but noted that he had failed to produce such evidence. 

In any event, the IJ further found that even if Hassanein’s testimony were

credible and had he applied for asylum, he would be ineligible. The IJ held that

assuming that Hassanein had been arrested and detained for one day in 1980 and

questioned on other occasions because of his membership in the Socialist Labor

Party, the incidents did not amount to past persecution, especially considering that he

had lived in Egypt for many years following his arrest and had obtained an Egyptian

passport in 2000. As to future persecution, the IJ noted that, aside from his

testimony, there was no evidence of his membership in the party in the United States

or Egypt. Because Hassanein could not meet the burden of proof for asylum, the IJ

accordingly denied his application for withholding of removal, which carries a higher

burden of proof. The IJ also denied relief under the CAT. The BIA summarily

upheld the denial. 

On reviewing the petition, “[w]e treat the IJ’s decision as a final agency action

for purposes of judicial review [because] the BIA affirm[ed] without an opinion.” 

Al Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir. 2004) (Al Tawm). We must affirm

the IJ’s “factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.” Id.

Moreover, we defer to the IJ’s credibility finding where it is “supported by a specific,

cogent reason for disbelief.” Perinpanathan v. Ashcroft, 310 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir.

2002) (Perinpanathan) (internal quotation omitted). As the IJ noted, “[w]ithholding

of removal involves a higher degree of certainty that persecution will occur than that

required for asylum eligibility.” Al Tawm, 363 F.3d at 744. To be eligible for

asylum, an alien must present evidence showing past persecution or a well-founded

fear of future persecution, both subjectively and objectively. Id. at 743. To be

eligible for withholding of removal, Hassanein had to present evidence that it was

“more likely than not that [he] would be subject to persecution” because of his

membership in the Socialist Labor Party. Id. at 744 (internal quotation omitted).
-4-

Under CAT, he had to present evidence that “more likely than not he [would] be

tortured if he return[ed]” to Egypt. Id.

Hassanein could not reasonably challenge the IJ’s credibility finding, which is

well-supported. As the IJ noted, Hassanein lied several times in connection with his

1998 application for adjustment of status. He represented to the INS that his father,

who died in 1996, was alive and asked a friend to forge his deceased father’s

signature on an affidavit he submitted in support of the application. In addition,

Hassanein now requests relief because of membership in the Socialist Labor Party.

However, on his 1998 adjustment application when asked whether since age sixteen

he had ever been a member of a political party or organization in the United States

or elsewhere, he answered “none.” It is true, as Hassanein argues, “an alien need not

always corroborate his [or her] testimony.” Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d

983, 987 (8th Cir. 2003). However, “it must bear some degree of reliability,” which

is lacking in this case. Id. Indeed, we have recently stated that if an IJ “‘does not

believe the [alien] or does not know what to believe, the [alien’s] failure to

corroborate his [or her] testimony can be fatal.’” Kondakova v. Ashcroft,

No. 02-4151, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15596, at *11 (8th Cir. July 29, 2004) (quoting

Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

In any event, the arguments Hassanein raises in his petition for review are

without merit. Even if Hassanein had been detained for one day and questioned on

other occasions because of his involvement with the Socialist Labor Party, the

incidents did not establish past persecution. “Brief periods of detention do not

necessarily constitute [past] persecution.” Al Tawm, 363 F.3d at 743. Indeed, we

have stated that “even detentions lasting two or three days [] do not amount to

political persecution, even if government officials are motivated by political animus.”

Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 2004). Moreover, as the IJ noted,

Hassanein lived in Egypt for many years following the alleged one-day detention and

had obtained an Egyptian passport in 2000. 
-5-

Nor, as he was required to do, did Hassanein present “credible, specific

evidence” of a well-founded fear of future persecution, both objectively and

subjectively. Al Tawm, 363 F.3d at 743. His testimony concerning his uncle and

cousin was “uncorroborated and lacking in detail,” and “attacks on family members

do not necessarily establish a well-founded fear of persecution.” Nyonzele v. INS,

83 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir. 1996). Also, other than his testimony, there was no

evidence that Hassanein had been a member of the Socialist Labor Party in Egypt or

the United States. Indeed, as noted above, on his adjustment application, he

represented that he had never been a member of the party here or in Egypt. Because

Hassanein “has failed to carry the burden of proof to demonstrate he is eligible for

asylum, he also fails under the higher burden of proof required for withholding.” Al

Tawm, 363 F.3d at 744. 

In addition, Hassanein failed to carry his burden of proof under CAT. He has

not shown that he suffered past torture and has not provided evidence that “it is more

likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to [Egypt].” Id.; see also

Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 599 (petitioner’s “lack of credibility and failure to

document reasons why he believes he will be tortured by government officials [upon

return] eliminate his eligibility for relief under [CAT]”).

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. 

__________________________________________