Alida Malaj v. Alberto Gonzales

Eighth Circuit

Alida Malaj v. Alberto Gonzales

188 F. App'x 538

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 2006

Docket05-2768

StatusUnpublished

This text of 188 F. App'x 538 (Alida Malaj v. Alberto Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alida Malaj v. Alberto Gonzales, 188 F. App'x 538 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alida Malaj, an Albanian citizen, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review).

When an asylum decision is based on an adverse credibility finding, as it was in this case, we generally defer to the IJ if the credibility finding is supported by “specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.” See id. at 982. Upon careful review, we conclude that the IJ provided such reasons.

We also conclude that Malaj failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 798 (8th Cir.2004) (applicant must genuinely fear persecution and offer credible, specific evidence that reasonable person in her position would fear persecution if returned), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1053, 125 S.Ct. 894, 160 L.Ed.2d 775 (2005). Malaj’s asylum claim thus fails, and her claim for withholding of removal— which carries a more stringent burden of proof—necessarily fails as well. See Eta-Ndu, 411 F.3d at 986. To the extent her CAT claim is renewable, we agree with the BIA that Malaj presented no separate facts supporting CAT relief. See Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 593, 595 (8th Cir.2006).

Malaj’s remaining arguments provide no basis for granting her petition for review, and accordingly we deny it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Alida Malaj, an Albanian citizen, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review).

When an asylum decision is based on an adverse credibility finding, as it was in this case, we generally defer to the IJ if the credibility finding is supported by “specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.” See id. at 982. Upon careful review, we conclude that the IJ provided such reasons.

We also conclude that Malaj failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 798 (8th Cir.2004) (applicant must genuinely fear persecution and offer credible, specific evidence that reasonable person in her position would fear persecution if returned), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1053, 125 S.Ct. 894, 160 L.Ed.2d 775 (2005). Malaj’s asylum claim thus fails, and her claim for withholding of removal— which carries a more stringent burden of proof—necessarily fails as well. See Eta-Ndu, 411 F.3d at 986. To the extent her CAT claim is renewable, we agree with the BIA that Malaj presented no separate facts supporting CAT relief. See Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 593, 595 (8th Cir.2006).

Malaj’s remaining arguments provide no basis for granting her petition for review, and accordingly we deny it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F. App'x 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alida-malaj-v-alberto-gonzales-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack