United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3176

___________________________

Nadiia Romentes

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III,1 Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: June 2, 2017

Filed: June 7, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

1

Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of

the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 43(c).
Ukrainian citizen Nadiia Romentes petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order

denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

Torture. Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, but adds its

own reasoning, this court reviewsthe BIA’s and IJ’s decisions together. See GarciaMilian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016). The IJ determined that Romentes

had not established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief,

because her testimony was not credible and she could not meet her burden of proof

with other evidence. We find that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is

supported by substantial evidence, and is entitled to deference, because it was

supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. See Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d

548, 555 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court defers to IJ’s credibility determination where it

is supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief). Specifically, the IJ found that

Ms.Romentes’s demeanor at the merits hearing was casual and detached even though

she was describing repeated incidents of physical abuse that she allegedly suffered

at the hands of the person whom she feared in the Ukraine. See Chakhov v. Lynch,

837 F.3d 843, 846 (8th Cir. 2016) (IJ may base credibility determination on, among

other things, demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of applicant or witness); DiazPerez v. Holder, 750 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2014) (IJ has seen witnesstestify and

thus is in best position to determine credibility). Further, the IJ outlined numerous

inconsistencies between Ms. Romentes’s testimony and her documentary evidence--

many of which went to the heart of her asylum claim--and the IJ was unpersuaded by

the reasons that Ms. Romentes gave to justify or explain the discrepancies. See Ali

v. Holder, 686 F.3d 534, 537-38 (8th Cir. 2012) (credibility findings are reviewed for

substantial evidence, and are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to reach contrary conclusion); cf. Redd v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 838, 842

-2-
(8th Cir. 2008) (unexplained inconsistencies that went to heart of asylum claim

supported IJ’s credibility determination). The petition for review is denied.

2

 

2We do not consider those matters that Ms. Romentes failed to raise before the

BIA,see Martinez Carcamo v. Holder, 713 F.3d 916, 925 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing

administrative exhaustion); and we find no merit to her argument that the BIA

violated due process by reviewing the IJ’s credibility finding only for clear error.

-3-