1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1104

___________

Antonia A. Joppa, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review from the 

v. * Board of Immigration Appeals

* Judge Carlos Cuevas

John D. Aschroft, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 2004

 Filed: May 21, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE, Circuit Judge, and MAGNUSON,1

 District

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Antonia Joppa petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of her

application for asylum and withholding of removal. Joppa appeals only the denial of

her request for asylum. We affirm.
-2-

BACKGROUND

Joppa was born in 1968 in Lome, Togo. In 1990, she left Togo for Ghana

where she lived for three years. She obtained a Ghanian passport. While living in

Ghana, Joppa returned to Togo on various occasions to attend school. There, she

participated in student demonstrations against the Eyadema regime in Togo. In July

1991, Joppa contends that she was arrested, detained and questioned, and beaten for

her participation in a student demonstration.

Following her arrest, Joppa returned to Togo and lived with her parents. Joppa

maintains that Togolese soldiers came to her parents’ home looking for her, destroyed

everything inside the home and beat its occupants. Joppa also contends that in June

1993, Togolese security forces went to her parents’ home and completely destroyed

it. Joppa’s parents then moved to Ghana, where they currently reside. In 1993, Joppa

fled to the United States, after two of her friends were allegedly murdered in Ghana.

She is in the United States illegally, having overstayed her visa. Joppa claims that

she is entitled to asylum in the United States because of past persecution and a wellfounded fear of future persecution on account of her participation in a student

movement in Togo. 

On January 27, 1998, Joppa appeared before Immigration Judge Carlos Cuevas.

Judge Cuevas determined that Joppa was a citizen of Ghana, as well as a citizen of

Togo. Judge Cuevas concluded that Joppa failed to demonstrate past persecution in

either Togo or Ghana. Judge Cuevas further concluded that Joppa failed to establish

a well-founded fear of future persecution in either Togo or Ghana. Although Joppa

raises other issues on appeal, her failure to establish a well-founded fear of future

persecution in Togo disposes of her entire petition.
-3-

DISCUSSION

When the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without an opinion, the IJ’s decision

is the final agency action for purposes of judicial review. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)

(2004.) We review to determine whether substantial evidence on the administrative

record as a whole supports the decision to deny asylum. Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft,

337 F.3d 983, 986-87 (8th Cir. 2003). Only where the evidence in support of the

application is “so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution” will the Court reverse the IJ’s decision to deny asylum.

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

The attorney general may grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1).

A “refugee” includes an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to her country of

origin “because of persecution or a well-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). There is a rebuttable presumption of future

persecution if Joppa establishes that she suffered past persecution. 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(b)(1)(i). Absent evidence of past persecution, Joppa must independently

demonstrate that her fear of future persecution is both subjectively genuine and

objectively reasonable. Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2002).

Subjectively, Joppa must establish with credible evidence that she genuinely fears

persecution; objectively, Joppa must show through credible, direct, and specific

evidence that a reasonable person in her position would fear persecution. Feleke v.

INS, 118 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 1997).

Joppa has failed to come forward with credible evidence of a well-founded fear

of future persecution in Togo. Joppa testified that she was arrested for her

participation in a student demonstration in 1991. Following her arrest, Joppa moved

to Ghana. For the next two years, she attended school in Togo, and lived in Ghana.

Joppa felt safe enough to travel back and forth to Togo, despite her alleged past
-4-

persecution. Although she testified that Togolese forces destroyed her parent’s home,

she failed to provide any evidence that the attack was directed at her. See Nyonzele

v. INS, 83 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir. 1996) (discussing that attacks on family members,

absent a pattern of persecution linked to applicant, is insufficient to demonstrate a

well-founded fear of persecution). Joppa presented no evidence that security forces

or other government officials continued to look for her following her 1991 arrest, or

that they continue to look for her today. Although Togo has general conflict and

some political unrest, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Joppa has

not experienced past persecution in Togo, nor does she have a well-founded fear of

persecution in Togo.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial evidence to support the IJ’s decision that Joppa failed to

meet her burden of demonstrating statutory eligibility for asylum. Accordingly, we

deny Joppa’s petition for review, and grant her a 30 day allowance of voluntary

departure.