Sarah Nkurunungi v. Alberto Gonzales, No. 05-1604 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. Immigration Judge's decision - based on the finding that petitioner had failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution - was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-1604 ___________ Sarah Nkurunungi, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board of * Immigration Appeals. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * ___________ Submitted: September 6, 2006 Filed: September 11, 2006 ___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Sarah Nkurunungi, a citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed an Immigration Judge s (IJ s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 1 The IJ s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for purposes of judicial review. See Kimumwe v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 319, 322 (8th Cir. 2005). After careful review of the record, we conclude the IJ s asylum decision--based on the finding that Nkurunungi failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution--is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). Further, because Nkurunungi failed to meet the burden of proof on her asylum claim, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well, see Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir. 2005) (withholding-of-removal standard is more rigorous than asylum standard), and we see no basis in the record for CAT relief, see Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 780-82 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing considerations relevant to relief under CAT). Accordingly, we deny the petition. We also deny Nkurunungi s motion to supplement the record. We previously granted Nkurunungi s motion for stay of her removal and voluntary-departure period; the remaining period in which she may voluntarily depart the United States shall begin to run when our mandate in this case is issued, see Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2005). ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
