Keo v. Mukasey, No. 08-1103 (1st Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West s Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 08-1103 KIMNY KEO, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Torruella, Baldock, * and Lipez, Circuit Judges. Joseph A. MacDonald, on brief, for petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Linda S. Wendtland, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Justin Constantine, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief, for respondent. September 25, 2008 * Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. BALDOCK, Naturalization Security) Circuit Judge. Service charged (now The the Petitioner former Immigration Department Kimny Keo, a of Homeland citizen Cambodia, with overstaying his non-immigrant visa. U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). and of See 8 Petitioner admitted the charge s factual allegations (contained in a Notice to Appear) and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). 1 In his application, Petitioner alleged a fear of persecution in Cambodia related to his past political activities. Following a hearing at which Petitioner testified at length, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found him not credible. See id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii),(iii) (establishing framework for credibility determinations). the IJ asylum. first concluded Based on blanket findings, Petitioner was not eligible for The IJ explained that Petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing he was a refugee within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), i.e., one having a well-founded 1 Petitioner also unsuccessfully sought relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because Petitioner has not argued his CAT claim in his appellate brief, that claim is not before us on the Petition for Review. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (recognizing settled appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived ). -2- fear of persecution based on, among other things, political opinion. to See id. § 1158(b) (requiring applicant for asylum establish Petitioner refugee was not status). entitled The to IJ further withholding concluded of removal because he did not meet his burden of establishing his life or freedom would be threatened opinion if removed to Cambodia. on account of political See id. § 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner s appeal, agreeing with the IJ s decision for the reasons stated therein. The BIA explained that the IJ s adverse credibility determination was not clearly erroneous. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). In Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 2007) we set forth the standard of review applicable to the present Petition: This court reviews findings of fact in immigration proceedings, including findings with respect to credibility, to determine whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Under that standard, an adverse credibility determination may stand if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. (internal quotations and citation omitted). repeat Petitioner s story here. We need not We have carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties briefs, and conclude the IJ and BIA reached a permissible result under the applicable law. We have repeatedly opined that when a lower court -3- accurately takes the measure of a case and articulates a cogent rationale, it serves no useful reviewing court to write at length. purpose for a Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Zaldivar, 413 F.3d 119, 120 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Seaco Ins. Co. v. Davis-Irish, 300 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing cases)). Because substantial evidence supports both the IJ s and BIA s respective decisions, we deny the Petition for Review for substantially the reasons set forth in those decisions. 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2008) See Lin v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d ( Where the BIA adopts the IJ s ruling, but also engages in discussion of its own, we review the decisions of both together. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. -4-
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.
