Teyent Loulou v. John Ashcroft ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3004
    ___________
    Teyent Loulou,                          *
    *
    Petitioner,          * On Petition for Review from
    * Immigration and Naturalization
    v.                                * Service.
    *
    John Ashcroft,                          *
    *
    Respondent.          *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 19, 2003
    Filed: December 30, 2003
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    FAGG, Circuit Judge.
    Teyent Loulou, a native of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a removal order
    issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holding her removable and
    ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Loulou alleged she has a well-
    founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia because of her political opinion and ethnic
    group. At a hearing, Loulou testified her parents had been persecuted in Ethiopia
    after her departure, but she presented no corroborating evidence. An immigration
    judge (IJ) found Loulou was not credible and she failed to provide easily obtainable
    documentation to support her claims. Loulou appealed, and the BIA affirmed without
    opinion under its recently adopted streamlined review procedure, 
    8 C.F.R. § 3.1
    (a)(7).
    In her petition for review, Loulou contends the streamlined review procedure violates
    due process and there was substantial evidence of her family’s past persecution and
    of her well-founded fear of persecution to warrant a grant of asylum. We deny
    Loulou’s petition.
    We first consider Loulou’s due process challenge to the streamlined review
    procedure. In response to an exploding caseload, the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service (INS) established streamlined review procedures in 1999. Although an IJ’s
    decision is ordinarily reviewed by a three-member panel of the BIA, the streamlined
    review regulation authorizes an individual BIA member to affirm the IJ’s decision
    without opinion when the individual member decides that the result was correct, that
    any errors were harmless or nonmaterial, and either that the issue on appeal is
    squarely controlled by existing BIA or federal court precedent and does not involve
    a novel factual situation, or that the factual and legal questions raised are so
    insubstantial that three-member review is not warranted. 
    8 C.F.R. § 3.1
    (a)(7)(ii).
    When an individual BIA member streamlines an appeal, the IJ’s order is the final
    agency determination for the purposes of judicial review. 
    Id.
     § 3.1(a)(7)(iii).
    Loulou contends the BIA’s summary affirmance violated her due process rights
    because the summary affirmance fails to give individualized attention to her case and
    frustrates our review. We join our sister circuits in concluding the streamlined review
    procedure does not violate an alien’s due process rights. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,
    
    335 F.3d 1009
    , 1012-15 (9th Cir. 2003); Georgis v. Ashcroft, 
    328 F.3d 962
    , 966-67
    (7th Cir. 2003); Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney General, 
    327 F.3d 1283
    , 1288-89 (11th Cir.
    2003); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 830
    , 831-33 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam);
    Albathani v. INS, 
    318 F.3d 365
    , 375-78 (1st Cir. 2003). An alien has no constitutional
    or statutory right to an administrative appeal. Mendoza, 
    327 F.3d at 1289
    . Any
    rights to an administrative appeal are created by regulations issued by the Attorney
    General, and under the regulations, aliens have no right to a full opinion by the BIA.
    
    Id.
     Further, the streamlined review procedure does not compromise our ability to
    -2-
    review the INS’s decision because we can review the IJ’s decision directly. Id.;
    Falcon Carriche, 335 F.3d at 1014; Georgis, 
    328 F.3d at 967
    . Indeed, even before the
    streamlined review procedure was adopted, we recognized the BIA could affirm,
    without additional explanation, an IJ’s opinion, making the IJ’s opinion the subject
    of our judicial review. Maashio v. INS, 
    45 F.3d 1235
    , 1238 (8th Cir. 1995); see
    Soadjede, 
    324 F.3d at
    832 (citing cases holding same from most circuits).
    In this case, Loulou received a full hearing before an IJ, a detailed and reasoned
    opinion from the IJ, an opportunity to present arguments to the BIA, and a decision
    from a BIA member. There is no evidence the BIA member did not review the facts
    of Loulou’s case or otherwise failed to conduct the required review. See Mendoza,
    
    327 F.3d at 1289
    ; Soadjede, 
    324 F.3d at 832
    . We thus conclude the BIA’s summary
    affirmance did not violate any due process rights.
    Loulou also challenges the IJ’s denial of her asylum claim. The Attorney
    General may grant asylum to aliens who are unable or unwilling to return to their
    country of origin “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
    account of . . . political opinion.” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(42)(A); see Melecio-Saquil v.
    Ashcroft, 
    337 F.3d 983
    , 986 (8th Cir. 2003). Loulou alleges she has a well-founded
    fear of persecution on account of her political opinion because the current Ethiopian
    government, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRFD),
    persecuted her parents, ethnic Amharas and members (but not officers) of the All-
    Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO). Loulou is also of Amhara ethnicity and a
    member of the All-Amhara People’s Relief and Development Assocation, the
    American relief arm of the AAPO, which protested a visit to the United States by
    members of the EPRFD. At the hearing before the IJ, Loulou claimed her father was
    fired from his government job in Ethiopia, arrested after attending an AAPO rally,
    tortured, beaten, taken to a hospital, and killed by police two years later. Loulou also
    claimed her mother has been detained and interrogated several times about her
    husband’s whereabouts.
    -3-
    The IJ denied Loulou’s application for asylum finding Loulou failed to show
    she had a well-founded fear of persecution. We must accept this finding unless
    Loulou shows “‘no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
    persecution.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 483-84 (1992)). A
    well-founded fear of persecution is both subjectively genuine and objectively
    reasonable. 
    Id.
     To show fear of persecution is objectively reasonable, an alien must
    present “credible, direct, and specific evidence of facts that show a reasonable person
    in the alien’s position would fear persecution if returned to the alien’s native
    country.” Ghasemimehr v. INS, 
    7 F.3d 1389
    , 1390 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
    Although an applicant for asylum need not always corroborate her testimony, we
    defer to an IJ’s finding that an alien’s testimony is not credible if the finding is
    supported by a specific, cogent reason for disbelief. Melecio-Saquil, 
    337 F.3d at 987
    .
    An alien’s failure to present easily available, material, corroborating evidence to
    support her asylum claim may doom her application for asylum. See Perinpanathan
    v. INS, 
    310 F.3d 594
    , 598 (8th Cir. 2002); Sidhu v. INS, 
    220 F.3d 1085
    , 1090 (9th Cir.
    2000).
    Here, the IJ specifically found Loulou’s testimony was not credible and she had
    not provided easily obtainable documentation to corroborate and support her claim.
    The IJ had specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Loulou. See Melecio-Saquil, 
    337 F.3d at 987
    . For example, Loulou testified she had last spoken to her mother in June
    1998, when her mother called from Ethiopia, but in reality, Loulou spoke to her less
    than thirty days before the hearing while her mother was visiting the United States.
    Despite her mother’s presence in the country and her value as the only potential
    witness with first-hand knowledge of the alleged persecution, Loulou did not tell her
    own attorney about her mother’s presence. Instead, the IJ learned Loulou’s mother
    was here through the testimony of another witness. Rather than presenting her
    mother’s testimony under oath, telephonically or otherwise, Loulou submitted two
    unsworn letters that failed to answer many obvious questions. Under the
    circumstances, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that Loulou’s failure
    -4-
    to call her mother as a witness had a major adverse impact on her credibility. See
    Sidhu, 
    220 F.3d at 1089-91
    .
    Loulou’s testimony contained other material inconsistencies that cast doubt on
    her credibility. Loulou testified police had murdered her father, but in an affidavit
    claimed he had gone into hiding. She testified police harassed her mother about her
    father’s whereabouts after his disappearance, yet claimed police had killed him before
    the harassment allegedly occurred. Loulou also stated her mother reported her
    father’s disappearance, but there are no police reports documenting his disappearance.
    Likewise, Loulou did not attempt to obtain hospital records showing her father had
    been hospitalized. Further, neither Loulou nor her mother sought assistance from
    their human rights organizations to find him or determine his fate. Loulou also failed
    to explain her mother’s ability to travel to the United States for an extended vacation,
    despite her alleged persecution.
    In sum, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Loulou is not
    eligible for asylum. We thus deny Loulou’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision.
    We vacate the order of deportation, however, and reinstate Loulou’s previously
    granted voluntary departure period under terms and conditions prescribed by the BIA.
    See Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 
    342 F.3d 55
    , 59 (1st Cir. 2003); Aiyadurai v. INS, 
    683 F.2d 1195
    , 1201 (8th Cir. 1982).
    ______________________________
    -5-