United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-3847 ___________________________ Wendkouni Wilfried Arnold Zongo Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: May 11, 2023 Filed: June 16, 2023 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. Wendkouni Wilfried Arnold Zongo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protections. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), this court denies the petition. I. Wendkouni Wilfried Arnold Zongo, a native of Côte d’Ivoire and citizen of Burkina Faso, was admitted to the United States in 2016 with an F-1 student visa. Zongo soon withdrew from the university, terminating his student visa. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on his fears of harm from his political opinions and affiliation with the Congress for Democracy and Progress. Three years later, he updated his affidavit with two additional bases for fear of future persecution: his Christian faith and Fulani ethnicity. The Immigration Judge identified unexplained inconsistencies between the updated affidavit and the original affidavit. The IJ found that the updated affidavit was not filed within the one-year filing deadline. Based on an adverse credibility finding and insufficient corroborating evidence, the IJ denied Zongo’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protections. The IJ stipulated Côte d’Ivoire as an alternate country for removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s denials of each application. The BIA noted that Zongo did not— and thus waived the right to—challenge the IJ’s finding that the one-year bar to asylum barred his late-filed religion and particular social group claims. Zongo appeals, alleging (1) the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the adverse credibility determination and (2) the adverse credibility determination is not dispositive of applications for CAT protection. “This court reviews the BIA’s decision as the final agency action, but to the extent the BIA adopts the findings of the IJ, this court reviews those findings as part of the final agency action.” R.K.N. v. Holder, 701 F.3d 535, 537 (8th Cir. 2012). This court reviews credibility determinations “for substantial evidence, and it is a rare case where an adverse credibility determination is disturbed on appeal.” Gonzales v. Garland, 29 F.4th 989, 995 (8th Cir. 2022). “To reverse under the substantial evidence standard, the evidence must be so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find for [the applicant].” Nadeem v. Holder, 599 F.3d 869, 872 (8th Cir. 2010). -2- II. Zongo argues that the BIA abused its discretion by finding no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Adverse credibility determinations must be supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. Under this standard, an immigration judge must provide reasons that are specific enough for a reviewing court to understand the rationale behind the decision and convincing enough that a reasonable adjudicator …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals