Jiksa Feyessa v. John D. Ashcroft, (8th Cir. 2003)
Linked as:
Text
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2991
Jiksa Feyessa, Petitioner, v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Submitted: September 5, 2003 Filed: September 26, 2003
Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Ethiopian citizen Jiksa Feyessa (Feyessa) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming an Immigration JudgeÂ’s (IJÂ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. For reversal, Feyessa argues the BIA abused its discretion in denying his application, and the summary affirmance violated his due process rights. After careful review, we deny the petition.
We defer to the IJÂ’s adverse credibility findings, because they are supported by "specific, cogent reason[s] for disbelief." See Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1391 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). As the IJ noted, Feyessa did not offer any evidence to corroborate his alleged political activities and mistreatment by government forces. See Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2002); Ghasemimehr, 7 F.3d at 1391. In addition, FeyessaÂ’s father continued to draw a pension in Ethiopia and his mother continued to work there despite the familyÂ’s alleged political activities. Feyessa had obtained an exit visa and renewal of his passport in 1994, and over the next several years his parents were able to travel back and forth between Ethiopia and the United States. A 1997 Department of State profile of Ethiopia indicates members of FeyessaÂ’s political party are being invited to participate peacefully in the political process and most political prisoners have been released.
Because the only evidence of past or future persecution was FeyessaÂ’s uncorroborated and discredited testimony, we conclude substantial evidence supports the IJÂ’s finding that Feyessa did not show he suffered past persecution or had a well- founded fear of future persecution. See Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997). Further, we find no violation of FeyessaÂ’s due process rights in this case. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 2003); Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
Petition for Review of an
Order of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - Zebenework Haile Georgis, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General, Respondent., 328 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2003)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Wolde Amanuel Feleke, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent., 118 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 1997)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Cesar Julio Chavez Dominguez, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent., 336 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2003)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Kirupanathan Perinpanathan, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service; John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General, Respondents., 310 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2002)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Saeed Ghasemimehr, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent., 7 F.3d 1389 (8th Cir. 1993)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
