* The Honorable Theodore McMillian diedon January 18, 2006. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2894

___________ Alga Ogbay Woldemichael; Nazrawi * Yemane Abraham, *
* Petitioners, * * Petition for Review of an v. * Order of the Board of * Immigration Appeals. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of * the United States of America, *
* Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 2006 Filed: June 5, 2006

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN * and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ LOKEN, Chief Judge. Alga Ogbay Woldemichael, a 54-year-oldcitizen of Eritrea, and her young son, Nazrawi Yemane Abraham, entered th e United States in September 1999 on nonimmigrant visas and applied for asylum, w ithholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that Woldemichael would be persecuted as a Jehovah’s Witness if removed to Eritrea. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the-2- application after a hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed without opinion. Woldemichael petitions for judicial review of the final agency action. We deny the petition.

I.

Woldemichael was the only witness who tes tified at the hearing. She testified that she lived with her Greek Orthodox family until 1985 in Eritrea, a 48,000 squaremile part of Ethiopia that became an inde pendent nation in 1993. She began secretly worshiping as a Jehovah’s Witness in 1984 after a friend introduced her to the religion. When her mother discovered a cassette tape containing Jehovah’s Witness prayers, the family demanded that Wold emichael abandon her belief or leave home. Woldemichael moved to Khartoum, Sudan, where many Eritreans were living to avoid the growing conflict between Ethiopians and Eritreans. She found work and later met and married Yemane Abraham Tekle, anOrthodox Christian from Eritrea. When Tekle found work in Saudi Arabia, the couple moved to Riyadh in 1987, where Woldemichael worked as a housekeeperuntil her son was born in 1993.

In 1992, Woldemichael encountered the friend who introduced her to the Jehovah’s Witness religion. The two resume d regular worship at the American and Italian embassies in Riyadh with other Eritean and Ethiopian Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to Woldemichael, though she a nd the friend occasionally worshiped at home, she concealed her religious beliefs from her husband because he disapproved of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1999, Tekl e discovered Woldemichael’s religious literature, became furious and abusive, and ultimately obtained a divorce from the Eritrean embassy because Wold emichael was “not the same religion.” The divorce ended Woldemichael’s authorization to wo rk in Saudi Arabia. She and her son obtained non-immigrant visas to the United States with the help of a Saudi businessman. After entering the United Stat es in New York City, they lived with cousins in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and then moved to Worthington, Minnesota.-3- Woldemichael also submitted affidavits from elders of the Jehovah’s Witness church stating that she regularly attende d Sunday service, Bibl e study, and classes teaching the life of Jesus while in Sioux Falls and Worthington. The cousins with whom she lived in Sioux Falls submitted affidavits supporting Woldemichael’s testimony that she is cut off from her family in Eritrea because of her religion.

The administrative record al so includes Department of State reports addressing the conditions facing Jehovah’s Witnesses inEritrea since that country gained its independence in 1993. The most recent Country Report in the record reports:

The [Eritrean] Constitution provides for the freedom to practice any religion . . . and Islam and most form s of Christianity are practiced and tolerated widely throughout the country with persons free to worship at the church or mosque of their choice; however, the Government continued to harass, de tain, and discriminate against members of the small community of Jehovah’s Witne sses because of their refusal, on religious grounds, to vote in the referendum on independence or to perform national service. . . . This has led to widespread criticism that members of Jehovah’s Witnesses collectively were shirking their civic duties. . . . Although persons from other religious groups, including Muslims, reportedly have been punished in past years for failure to participate in national service, only members of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subject to dismissal from the civil service, had their trading licenses revoked, been evicted fro m government-owned housing, and been denied passports, identity cards, and exit visas. However, there were no reports that Jehovah’s W itnesses who performed national service and participated in the national independen ce referendum were subject to discrimination.

The Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report for 2002 states that the Eritrean population is approximately 50% Sunni Muslim and 40% Orthodox Christian and includes similar informati on concerning the treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea.-4- In a Written Decision following the asylum hearing, the IJ explained that Woldemichael suffered no past persecution inEritrea and therefore must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution to prevail on her asylum claim. Though acknowledging “a pattern and practice of discrimination and persecution against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea,” the IJ expre ssed “serious concerns regarding whether [Woldemichael] is indeed a Jehovah’s Witne ss” -- her failure to become baptized in Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, or the United States ; the unlikelihood that she could keep her religious affiliation secret from her husband for twelve years; the representation that she was a Christian rather than a Jehovah’ s Witness on her son’s birth certificate in Saudi Arabia; and the fact that the affidav its from Jehovah’s Witness elders stated that Woldemichael attended services in Sioux Falls and Worthington but not that she was a member of their church. The IJ concl uded that Woldemichael is ineligible for asylum because “[i]t is highly unlikely th at a person in [her] position, a person who tenuously holds the tenets of the Jehova h’s Witness faith, will be persecuted if returned to Eritrea.” Alternatively, the IJ denied asylum as a matter of discretion because Woldemichael bypassed orderly refugee procedures. “She left Eritrea in 1985 and lived in Sudan from 1985-1987 and in Saudi Arabia from 1987-1999. [She] was not fleeing persecution when she came to th e United States in 1999; rather, she was forum shopping.” The IJ denied withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture but granted voluntary departure despite the adverse credibility finding.

II.

Woldemichael frames the primary issue fo r our review as whether the IJ erred in finding that she is not a Jehovah’s W itness based upon a flawed adverse credibility finding. This misstates, or at least obs cures, the relevant asylum analysis.

The Attorney General may, in his disc retion, grant asylum to a “refugee,” an alien who is outside her nativ e country and is unable or unwilling to return to that-5- country “because of persecution or a we ll-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158( b)(1)(A). “Persecution” is a rigorous standard -- “the infliction or threat of d eath, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom on account of a statutory ground su ch as religion.” Rife v. Ashcroft , 374 F.3d 606, 612 (8th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitte d). Absent physical harm, subjecting members of an unpopular faith to hostility, harassment, discrimination, and even economic deprivation is not persecution unless those persons are prevented from practicing their religion or deprived of their freedom. See Nagoulko v. I.N.S. , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003).

A finding of past persecution creates a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, but Woldemichael pr esented no evidence of past persecution. Indeed, she has not lived in Eritrea since it became a nation. Without the aid of the presumption, an asylum applicant may prove a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing an objectively reasonable fear of particularized persecution. See Feleke v. I.N.S. , 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997). Here, Woldemichael presented no evidence of the particular ci rcumstances she may face if re moved to Eritrea, other than evidence that she is cut o ff from her immediate family, an unfortunate circumstance but one which is not relevant to the persecution inquiry. Thus, Woldemichael may prove a well-founded fear only by showing:

(A) . . . that there is a pattern or practice in . . . her country . . . of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of . . . religion . . . and (B ) . . . her own inclusion in, and identification with, such group of pe rsons such that . . . her fear of persecution upon return is reasonable.

8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii). “Apattern or practice of pe rsecution must be systemic, pervasive, or organized.” Ngure v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 975, 991 (8th Cir. 2004).-6- The only pattern and practice evidence in the administrative record is found in the above-quoted Department of State reports . As the IJ noted, those reports suggest a pattern or practice of discrimination and persecution by the Eritrean government. But adverse action is only take n against Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to vote for independence and refuse to obey the requirement of national service. Other Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Department of State reports , are allowed to practice their religion and have not been fired from the civil servi ce and denied identity cards and passports. Thus, Woldemichael failed to prove that sh e is a member of the particular group that has been subjected to persecution. She was not a resident of Eritrea eligible to vote at the time of independence, and there is no evidence she opposed her countrymen’s efforts to form a new nation. There lik ewise is no evidence th at Woldemichael, now 54 years old, would be eligib le for national service if removed to Eritrea at this time and therefore no basis to fear she would be singled out for harsh treatment as a Jehovah’s Witness who refuses national servi ce. Compare Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft , 385 F.3d 1116, 1120 (7th Cir. 2004). Finally, her sporadic and “tenuous” connections to the Jehovah’s Witness organized religion pr ovide no basis to infer that she is the kind of “actively participating” member of the faith who would suffer persecution in a country that professes religious tolerance as a national policy and does not bar Jehovah’s Witnesses from worshiping in th eir churches and private homes. See Prokopenko v. Ashcroft , 372 F.3d 941, 946 (8th Cir. 2004).

For these reasons, substantia l evidence in the administrative record as a whole supports the IJ’s ultimate finding that Wo ldemichael failed to present credible evidence that she is a member of a group that is subjected to a pattern or practice of religious persecution in Eritrea. Given th e focused nature of Eritrea’s hostility toward Jehovah’s Witnesses, the issue is not whether Woldemichael is a “true believer” of that faith. See Muhur v. Ashcroft , 355 F.3d 958, 960 (7th Cir. 2004). Rather, the issue is whether she proved that she is sim ilarly situated to those Jehovah’s Witnesses who are targeted for harassmen t and discrimination. SeeWoldemeskel v. I.N.S. , 257 F.3d 1185, 1191 (10th Cir. 2001). Woldemic hael failed to satisfy this rigorous-7- burden. Therefore, she is ineligible for asylum. In these circ umstances, we need not address the IJ’s alternative decision to de ny the application for asylum as a matter of discretion, a ruling that we would re view for abuse of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(a); Farbakhsh v. I.N.S. , 20 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 1994).

For the same reasons, Woldemichael’s application for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Agains t Torture were properly denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(b )(2), 208.16(c)(2). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________