Case Name: Almaz Tessema LEMI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-05
Citations: 70 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 02-3163
Parties: Almaz Tessema LEMI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before BOWMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 910–910

Head Matter:
Almaz Tessema LEMI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 02-3163.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2003.
Decided Aug. 5, 2003.
Before BOWMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ethiopian citizen Almaz Tessema Lemi petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed her appeal of an Immigration Judge's denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. For reversal, Lemi argues that the interpreter's incompetence at the hearing denied her due process. She also argues that the BIA erred in finding that she did not show past persecution, and in denying her an opportunity to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition because the BIA's decision was supported by substantial evidence. See Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review).
We conclude that even assuming the interpretation error alleged by Lemi and assuming that her testimony was credible and supported a finding of past persecution, the record does not support a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir.2002) (if alien shows past persecution, agency has burden of showing that conditions in applicant's country have changed such that applicant no longer has well-founded fear of future persecution); Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 599 n. 1 (8th Cir.2002) (State Department reports are persuasive authority for determining whether asylum-seeker has well-founded fear of future persecution). In addition, we conclude that Lemi's claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention against Torture — based upon the same evidence — fail. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002); Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2001) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
A true copy.