Case Name: Said H. OMAR, 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: 2004-01-16
Citations: 85 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 03-1135
Parties: Said H. OMAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 541–541

Head Matter:
Said H. OMAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 03-1135.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2004.
Decided Jan. 16, 2004.
Said H. Omar, pro se, Fridley, MN, for Petitioner.
Kurt B. Larson, Thomas W. Hussey, David V. Bernal, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Emily Anne Radford, Allen W. Hausman, Russell J.E. Verby, Joshua Braunstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Paul Schmidt, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Falls Church, VA, Richard Soli, District Counsel, Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Blooming-ton, MN, for Respondent.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Somali native Said H. Omar petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an Immigration Judge's denial of Omar's application for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and voluntary departure. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition, because the evidence does not compel reversal. See Navarijo-Barrios v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 561, 562 (8th Cir.2003) (court is obligated to affirm unless asylum applicant shows that evidence not only supports reversal but compels it). Among other things, we find that the Immigration Judge articulated specific, cogent reasons why he believed that Omar's claims lacked credibility, such as inconsistencies between Omar's asylum application, interview, and hearing testimony; the lack of any supporting documentation; and the implausibility of some of Omar's assertions. See Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1391 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam). In addition, we conclude the evidence does not compel reversal as to Omar's claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2003); Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.