Sahra Hussein v. Michael Mukasey ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3024
    ___________
    Sahra Ahmed Hussein,                   *
    *
    Petitioner,                *
    * Petition for Review of an
    v.                               * Order of the Board
    * of Immigration Appeals.
    1
    Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Respondent.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 24, 2009
    Filed: May 4, 2009
    ___________
    Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Somalian citizen Sahra Hussein petitions for review of an order of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of
    asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
    (CAT). We deny the petition.
    1
    Eric H. Holder, Jr. has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the
    United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 43(c).
    When an asylum decision is based on an adverse credibility finding, as it was
    in this case, we generally defer to the agency if the credibility finding is supported by
    specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. See Sow v. Mukasey, 
    546 F.3d 953
    , 956 (8th
    Cir. 2008). Upon careful review, we conclude that the BIA and the IJ provided such
    reasons.2 See Prawira v. Gonzales, 
    405 F.3d 661
    , 663 (8th Cir. 2005) (IJ’s adverse
    credibility finding was supported by record where alien admitted lying in previous
    asylum application); S-Cheng v. Ashcroft, 
    380 F.3d 320
    , 323 (8th Cir. 2004) (adverse
    credibility finding not erroneous where alien lied in entry application and first asylum
    request); cf. Krouchevski v. Ashcroft, 
    344 F.3d 670
    , 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (if
    petitioner’s explanations and IJ’s adverse inferences from discrepancies both appear
    valid, reviewing court should not supersede IJ’s credibility finding). The adverse
    credibility finding is also dispositive of Hussein’s withholding-of-removal and CAT
    claims. See Zine v. Mukasey, 
    517 F.3d 535
    , 541 (8th Cir. 2008) (when asylum,
    withholding-of-removal, and CAT claims are based on same discredited testimony,
    adverse credibility finding is fatal to all three claims).
    Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
    ______________________________
    2
    Hussein filed her asylum application after May 11, 2005, and thus the REAL
    ID Act applies, see Al Milaji v. Mukasey, 
    551 F.3d 768
    , 772 n.2 (8th Cir. 2008); and
    under the Act, an IJ may make credibility findings without regard to whether the
    inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, see
    8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
    -2-