Case Name: Ifedolapo O. AJIBADE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-30
Citations: 92 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: No. 03-1951
Parties: Ifedolapo O. AJIBADE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 92
Pages: 384–384

Head Matter:
Ifedolapo O. AJIBADE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
No. 03-1951.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 25, 2004.
Decided March 30, 2004.
Paschal Obinna Nwokocha, St. Paul, MN, for Petitioner.
Blair T. O’Connor, Emily Anne Radford, Deborah Misir, Robert M. Loeb, Ara B. Gershengorn, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ifedolapo Ajibade, a citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ's) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition because substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the BIA's conclusions. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3692, 2004 WL 307451, at *3 (8th Cir. Feb.19, 2004) (standard of review). The IJ and the BIA articulated specific, cogent reasons for determining that Ajibade's testimony lacked credibility, such as inconsistencies in her statements and evidence regarding her husband's identity, arrests, incarceration, and whereabouts; her inability to answer questions regarding the group at the center of her claim; and the implausibility of her assertions regarding the dates, photos, identification numbers, and condition of her identification cards, and her assertion that her attorney failed to include an allegation of rape in her asylum application. See Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597-98 (8th Cir.2002).
In addition, we find that because Ajibade failed to meet the lower burden of proof on her asylum claim, she failed to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal, see Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir.2002), and she cannot pursue a Convention Against Torture claim for the first time in this petition for review, see 8 C.F.R. 208.18(b)(1) (2003) (procedures for applying for relief under Convention Against Torture).