Maselie Dumercy v. U.S. Atty. General , 144 F. App'x 89 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 2, 2005
No. 04-11002 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A77-920-562
MASELIE DUMERCY,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(September 2, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maselie Dumercy petitions this Court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the United States Convention on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). We deny the petition.
Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, the IJ’s decision
is the final agency decision subject to review. See Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327
F.3d 1283, 1284 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003). We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s
factual determination that an alien is not entitled to asylum. Id. To qualify for
asylum, an alien must show past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
“on account of” her political opinion (or another protected ground). See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 (1992).
The IJ concluded that Dumercy’s testimony was vague and conflicting on
key issues. In support of her claim of past persecution or fear of future
persecution, Dumercy, a native and citizen of Haiti, maintained that her boyfriend
(Mark Henry Fleurival) was shot and killed by the Lavalas gang in Haiti for
political reasons. She submitted Fleurival’s death certificate for the IJ’s
consideration and contended that because Fleurival was killed due to his political
opinion, the Lavalas group will seek to persecute her if she is returned to Haiti.
She testified that she was tortured physically and mentally by the threat of violence
and Fleurival’s death, and that relocation was not an option as the Haitian
2
government is unable to control the Lavalas. But substantial evidence supports the
IJ’s rejection of Fleurival’s death certificate and the police complaint presented by
Dumercy in support of her application – the death certificate was determined to be
fraudulent and the police complaint was suspicious due to numerous irregularities.
Without other evidence to support her claim, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
conclusion that Dumercy failed to meet her burden to establish eligibility for
asylum.
Furthermore, because she is not entitled to asylum, Dumercy cannot qualify
for withholding of removal, which has a more stringent standard for eligibility.
See Mazariegos v. Office of U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1324 n.2 (11th Cir.
2001). Similarly, she is unable to meet the burden on her claim for CAT relief
which also has a higher burden than that imposed on the asylum seeker. See Al
Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001).
Finding Dumercy’s claims without merit, we deny her petition.
DENIED.
3