Sahra Hussein v. Michael Mukasey

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.



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).



* * *



See: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/05/073024U.pdf

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.