Xiao Yun Liu v. Alberto Gonzales , 180 F. App'x 621 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-1544
    ___________
    Xiao Yun Liu,                         *
    Bao Cai Lian,                         *
    *
    Petitioners,             *
    * Petition for Review
    v.                             * of an Order of the
    * Board of Immigration Appeals.
    Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General    *
    of the United States of America,      * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Respondent.              *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 5, 2006
    Filed: May 12, 2006
    ___________
    Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Xiao Yun Liu and Bao Cai Lian, citizens of China, petition for review of an
    order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s
    (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
    Against Torture (CAT). Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that petitioners’ asylum
    application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(3); Aden v. Ashcroft, 
    396 F.3d 966
    ,
    968 (8th Cir. 2005). As to petitioners’ withholding of removal and CAT claims,
    which are not subject to the one-year filing deadline, we conclude substantial
    evidence on the record as a whole supports the IJ’s denial of those claims. See Ming
    Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 868
    , 870, 872 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of
    review); Ibrahim v. Gonzales, 
    434 F.3d 1074
    , 1078-79 (8th Cir. 2006) (IJ’s credibility
    finding is entitled to deference if supported by specific, cogent reasons); Sheikh v.
    Gonzales, 
    427 F.3d 1077
    , 1081 (8th Cir. 2005) (adverse credibility determination as
    to core of persecution testimony is dispositive of withholding-of-removal claim);
    Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    426 F.3d 520
    , 521-23 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding denial
    of CAT relief based on adverse credibility determination with respect to specific fact
    upon which CAT claim was premised). Finally, we conclude nothing in the record
    suggests the former Immigration and Naturalization Service violated 8 C.F.R. § 208.6
    (2005) (confidentiality of records) during its investigation of documents submitted
    by petitioners.
    Accordingly, we deny the petition.
    ______________________________
    -2-