United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2799

___________

Saron Fesehaye, also known as *

Ruth Balay, *

*

Petitioner, *

* On Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney *

General of the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2010

Filed: June 4, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Saron Fesehaye sought asylum, withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ)

denied all three claims and was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Fesehaye seeks review, arguing that the IJ and the BIA erred in denying the relief she

seeks. We deny the petition.

Fesehaye testified that she is an Ethiopian native of Eritrean nationality. She

entered the United States in 2005 from the Netherlands after her application for
-2-

asylum there had been denied. She entered this country using a Dutch passport in the

name of Ruth Balay. She then timely applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the CAT. Fesehaye conceded removability. 

An immigration hearing was held before the IJ in March 2007. Fesehaye

testified at the hearing that she was born in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1985 to Eritrean

parents. She was baptized into her father's Ethiopian Orthodox church. Feseyahe

testified that at age five she underwent female genital mutilation (FGM) at the request

of her father. She explained that the procedure was very painful and that she

continues to suffer physical and emotional side effects as a result of her FGM. 

Fesehaye testified that her family lived in Addis Ababa until 1991, when Eritrea

won provisional independence from the Ethiopian government. Her family then

moved to Asmara, Eritrea, where they lived for three years. Fesehaye testified that her

family returned to Addis Ababa in 1994 because her mother's Jehovah's Witness faith

precluded her from voting in the Eritrean independence referendum and not voting

would have placed her mother at risk of persecution from the Eritrean government.

Fesehaye testified that after returning to Ethiopia, she frequently witnessed police

officers arrest and assault innocent Eritreans.

After her father passed away in 1996 due to illness, Fesehaye converted to her

mother's Jehovah's Witness faith. In 1998 the border dispute between Ethiopia and

Eritrea resurfaced, and Fesehaye testified that violence against Eritreans living in

Ethiopia increased at that time. She stated that in June 1999, at age fourteen, she

returned home one evening to discover her mother missing. She went to the police

station to try to find her mother, but the police did not provide any help. Fesehaye

alleged that she became upset and called the officers a "derogatory name" and that the

officers responded by taping her mouth, tying her hands, physically assaulting her,

and keeping her incarcerated for two days. Fesehaye testified that she was released

when her uncle discovered her incarceration and paid for her release. 
-3-

After staying with her uncle's friend for several months, Fesehaye fled to the

Netherlands in October 1999. She immediately sought refugee status. Fesehaye was

interviewed by immigration officials twice in the Netherlands. She was denied Dutch

asylum in December 2004. Fesehaye testified before the IJ that she then attempted to

get an Ethiopian passport, but was denied because she is Eritrean. She alleged that

thereafter she was denied an Eritrean passport because she could not provide

documentation showing she had voted for Eritrean independence in 1993. Fesehaye

testified that she then purchased the false Dutch passport in the name of Ruth Balay

and fled to the United States. Fesehaye stated during her hearing that she cannot

return to Eritrea because the government will not allow her to practice her religion,

and she fears she will be killed or incarcerated because of her Jehovah's Witness faith.

The IJ found Fesehaye not credible. She "lacked objective, credible

documents" regarding her identity, nationality, and ethnicity. There were numerous

inconsistencies between her testimony during her immigration hearing and her Dutch

asylum application. Fesehaye's Dutch asylum application stated that her mother had

been kidnapped in the middle of the night three days before Fesehaye left Ethiopia,

not that Fesehaye returned home to find her mother missing several months before she

left the country. The Dutch application also described how Fesehaye went to the

police station to seek help in finding her mother, but it did not contain any mention

that she was detained or abused by police officers. In addition Fesehaye listed the

same Addis Ababa address in both asylum applications, but a Dutch investigation

reported that the neighborhood or kebele where she claimed to have resided did not

exist. 

The IJ determined that based upon the adverse credibility finding and lack of

corroboration, Fesehaye could not establish her identity, nationality, ethnicity, or

citizenship. She thus had "failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution" based

on a protected ground "that is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable." The

IJ concluded that Fesehaye was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or
-4-

CAT protection. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision due to the "striking

inconsistencies" between Fesehaye's Dutch and current asylum claims. Fesehaye

petitions for review of the BIA's decision.

 Both immigration decisions will be reviewed together whenever "the BIA

adopts and affirms the IJ's decision, but also adds reasoning of its own." Chen v.

Mukasey, 510 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir. 2007). We will affirm the decisions if they are

supported by substantial evidence, and will reverse "only if the petitioner

demonstrates that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could

fail to find in favor of the petitioner." Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 877, 880

(8th Cir. 2005).

Under our immigration law, "[t]he Attorney General has discretion to grant

asylum to a refugee, defined as an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to her

home country because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution

on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion.” Onsongo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir.2006). An

asylum applicant "must establish that one of the five protected grounds was or will be

at least one central reason" for the persecution. Averianova v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d

890, 895 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I)). 

An asylum applicant "bears the burden of satisfying the IJ that her testimony

is credible." Averianova, 509 F.3d at 895 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)).

Administrative findings of fact, including credibility determinations, are "conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary."

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2007). An

applicant for asylum will not succeed "regardless of the reason for the alleged

persecution" when there has been both "an adverse credibility finding and a lack of

corroborating evidence." Averianova, 509 F.3d at 895; Sivakaran v. Ashcroft, 368

F.3d 1028, 1029 (8th Cir. 2004).
1

Fesehaye also asserts that the BIA and the IJ erred by relying on a "foreign

asylum application" to challenge her credibility. Because Fesehaye did not raise this

argument before the IJ or BIA, we may not consider it. Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894,

901 (8th Cir. 2009); Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 2004). 

-5-

Fesehaye argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's adverse credibility

determination because it was not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ based its

adverse credibility finding largely on a number of inconsistencies between Fesehaye's

Dutch asylum application and her subsequent United States application. The

applications contained significantly different descriptions about her mother's alleged

abduction, about the treatment Fesehaye received from authorities when she sought

help finding her mother at the police station, about the location of her birth, and about

the periods of time she lived in Ethiopia as opposed to Eritrea. The IJ also noted that

the record reflected that the neighborhood Fesehaye claimed to have resided in does

not exist. 

Fesehaye offers several explanations for the inconsistencies between her asylum

applications.1

 She first states that the Ethiopian translator at her first Dutch asylum

interview was biased against her and as a result did not accurately translate her

statements. She does not explain why she did not correct the allegedly inaccurate

statements at her second asylum interview where she had an Eritrean translator.

Fesehaye also states that the Dutch immigration officials misunderstood the

description of her mother's alleged kidnapping. She asserts that she was merely

describing how people were often taken in the middle of the night and that she was not

saying her mother was kidnapped in that manner. With respect to her unverified

address, Fesehaye states that house numbers were frequently handwritten in Ethiopia

and as a result are difficult to verify. 

Even if the cumulation of Fesehaye's explanations could plausibly account for

the significant inconsistencies in her asylum applications, the IJ did not err by

rejecting them. Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2008). The IJ "is
-6-

in the best position to make credibility findings because [she] sees the witness as the

testimony is given." Gemechu v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 944, 947 (8th Cir. 2004). For

that reason, we defer to an IJ's credibility determination where, as here, it is supported

by "specific, cogent reasons for disbelief." Onsongo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 849, 852

(8th Cir. 2006). 

Fesehaye also argues that the IJ and the BIA failed to take into account the fact

that she was fourteen years old at the time of her Dutch application. Fesehaye

remained in the Netherlands until age twenty, however. During the intervening time,

she had the assistance of an attorney and a social worker. As the IJ noted, Fesehaye

had several opportunities and the assistance of advocates to correct what she now

describes as errors and misunderstandings in her Dutch asylum application. She did

not correct the alleged errors, and in fact the IJ observed that Fesehaye instead added

more detail to her account of her mother's nighttime abduction. Considering the

duration and circumstances of Fesehaye's immigration process in the Netherlands, we

cannot conclude that the IJ and BIA did not sufficiently consider the impact of

Fesehaye's age at the time of her initial asylum interview. 

In light of the discrepencies in Fesehaye's asylum applications and testimony,

the IJ was entitled to require corroborating evidence of her alleged identity as an

Eritrean national. Esaka v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1105, 1110 (8th Cir. 2005). Feseyahe

speaks Tigrinya, the primary language of Eritrea. She provided an affidavit of an

individual who stated that he had lived by her family in Addis Ababa and knew

Fesehaye to be Eritrean. She also submitted a baptismal certificate although the

document stated nothing with respect to her nationality. 

The IJ found this corroborating evidence insufficient to overcome the

significant discrepancies between Fesehaye's asylum applications and her testimony.

We cannot say that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's determination in this respect.

Rather, our review of the record shows that the IJ gave an adequate explanation for
-7-

the adverse credibility determination, that the determination was supported by

substantial evidence, and that a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to

reach a contrary conclusion. Singh, 495 F.3d at 557–58. 

Fesehaye also argues that the BIA and the IJ erred by denying her request for

asylum despite uncontested evidence that she had undergone FGM. In Hassan, this

court held that FGM "rises to the level of persecution within the meaning of our

asylum law." Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513, 517 (8th Cir. 2007). The Hassan

court clearly expressed, however, that "[i]n addition to showing past persecution, [an

applicant] must also show that this persecution is 'on account of' her membership in

one of five protected categories." Hassan, 484 F.3d at 518; Averianova, 509 F.3d at

895 (denying petition for review where asylum applicants had failed to "establish that

one of the five protected grounds" was the basis for their persecution). 

Here the IJ concluded that although Fesehaye had submitted uncontested

evidence that she had undergone FGM, she had failed to provide objective, credible

evidence of her nationality, ethnicity, or citizenship. She could not establish that she

was Eritrean or Ethiopian or that she was not Ruth Balay, the name on her Dutch

passport. In light of the adverse credibility findings and the lack of corroborating

evidence to establish her identity, Fesehaye could not satisfy her burden of proof to

show that the FGM she says was performed at her Ethiopian Orthodox father's request

occurred "on account of her membership" in a protected category, Hassan, 484 F.3d

at 518, and thus her asylum claim necessarily fails. Sivakaran, 368 F.3d at 1029;

Sheikh v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1077, 1081–82 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming denial of

asylum where petitioner "failed to establish that the harm . . . suffered . . . was on

account of a protected ground"). 

Finally, Fesehaye argues that the BIA clearly erred by failing to separately

consider and analyze her claim for protection under the CAT. Where an adverse

credibility finding justifies the denial of an application for asylum and withholding of
-8-

removal, that finding also justifies the denial of a claim for relief under the CAT.

Ezeagwu v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 836, 840 (8th Cir. 2008). "No separate analysis is

required" where, as here, the claim for protection under the CAT is based on the same

testimony as that underlying the petitioner's claims for asylum and withholding of

removal. Id. 

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Fesehaye's petition for review.

________________________________