Helen Wolde v. John Ashcroft

Eighth Circuit

Helen Wolde v. John Ashcroft

107 F. App'x 13

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2004

Docket03-1712

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 107 F. App'x 13 (Helen Wolde v. John Ashcroft) 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

Helen Wolde v. John Ashcroft, 107 F. App'x 13 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Helen Wolde, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Wolde contends that (1) the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion not only violated her right to due process, but constituted an abuse of discretion; and (2) the IJ erroneously determined that she failed to establish the requisite well-founded fear of persecution. After careful review of the record, see Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 779 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review), we deny the petition.

In view of this court’s precedent, Wolde’s various challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedures are not well-taken. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 983-88 (8th Cir.2004) (concluding, after lengthy analysis, that the BIA’s decision to issue an affirmance without opinion is not subject to judicial review); Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708-09 (8th Cir.2003) (concluding that the BIA’s streamlined review procedure does not violate an alien’s constitutional right to due process). Moreover, we find no error in the IJ’s factual determination that Wolde failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Although Wolde claimed to fear future persecution on the basis of her *14 membership in the Coalition of Ethiopian Democratic Forces (COEDF), the IJ offered specific and cogent reasons for discrediting her testimony. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir.2004) (noting the deference owed to an IJ’s credibility finding). Wolde was unable to accurately testify regarding the details of COEDF’s operations in the United States, including whether it maintained a website, published a newsletter, or even required its members to pay dues. In fact, while she acknowledged that the COEDF issues membership cards, Wolde failed to produce her own. We have considered the remainder of Wolde’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Helen Wolde, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Wolde contends that (1) the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion not only violated her right to due process, but constituted an abuse of discretion; and (2) the IJ erroneously determined that she failed to establish the requisite well-founded fear of persecution. After careful review of the record, see Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 779 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review), we deny the petition.

In view of this court’s precedent, Wolde’s various challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedures are not well-taken. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 983-88 (8th Cir.2004) (concluding, after lengthy analysis, that the BIA’s decision to issue an affirmance without opinion is not subject to judicial review); Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708-09 (8th Cir.2003) (concluding that the BIA’s streamlined review procedure does not violate an alien’s constitutional right to due process). Moreover, we find no error in the IJ’s factual determination that Wolde failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Although Wolde claimed to fear future persecution on the basis of her *14 membership in the Coalition of Ethiopian Democratic Forces (COEDF), the IJ offered specific and cogent reasons for discrediting her testimony. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir.2004) (noting the deference owed to an IJ’s credibility finding). Wolde was unable to accurately testify regarding the details of COEDF’s operations in the United States, including whether it maintained a website, published a newsletter, or even required its members to pay dues. In fact, while she acknowledged that the COEDF issues membership cards, Wolde failed to produce her own. We have considered the remainder of Wolde’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 F. App'x 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helen-wolde-v-john-ashcroft-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack