United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3143

___________

Fatoumata Binta Dieng, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an 

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General for *

the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: August 5, 2004

Filed: August 23, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Fatoumata Dieng illegally entered the United States on or about January 18,

1997, using her sister’s passport, and removal proceedings were later instituted

against her. She conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, alleging, inter alia,

numerous incidences of harassment and violence while she was in Sierra Leone and

Guinea. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Dieng’s applications for

relief finding that Dieng was not credible and that she had not met her burden of

proving a well-founded fear of persecution. Petitioner appealed to the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which summarily affirmed the IJ.
1

When the BIA affirms without explanation, the IJ’s opinion becomes the

subject of our judicial review. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 815 n.2 (8th

Cir. 2004).

-2-

We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, see INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and will reverse only if the evidence was “so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution.” Id. at 483-84. Likewise, we review the IJ’s credibility finding for

substantial evidence, see Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1391 (8th Cir. 1993),

and will “defer[] to an immigration judge’s credibility finding where the finding is

supported by a specific, cogent reason for disbelief.” Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d

594, 597 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotations and citations omitted).

Dieng argues that the BIA “obviously overlooked most of the facts and

evidence” she submitted, and that she presented sufficient credible evidence of past

persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution to support her asylum

application. However, after close examination of the record, we find that the IJ’s

decision1

 is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ’s credibility finding was

supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief, including, among other things: 1)

the complete contradiction between her first asylum application and her second

asylum application; 2) her failure to provide sufficient detail relating to the events

that led to her flight to the United States; 3) that she is an active opponent of female

genital mutilation, yet left her daughter in Guinea with a relative who favors the

practice; 4) that her oral testimony did not match her multiple affidavits; and 5) that

her explanation for the authenticity of one of her documents contradicts the document

itself. Given this lack of credibility and the lack of corroborating evidence noted by

the IJ, it cannot be said that Dieng’s evidence, taken as a whole, was “so compelling

that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” 
-3-

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84. Likewise, we cannot find anything to support

Dieng’s assertion that the BIA overlooked facts or evidence. 

Accordingly, Dieng’s petition for review is denied. 

______________________________