Vincent Tebit v. Michael B. Mukasey, No. 07-2836 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for review - Immigration. Court would defer to the IJ's credibility determinations as they were supported by specific, cogent reasons, and the agency did not err in denying petitioner's asylum and withholding-of-removal claims.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2836 ___________ Vincent Tadoh Tebit, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,1 Respondent. * * * * Petition for Review of * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: April 7, 2009 Filed: April 10, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Vincent Tebit, a citizen of Cameroon, 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 voluntary departure.2 We deny the petition. 1 Eric H. Holder, Jr. has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 2 The IJ also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture, but we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of this relief because it was not first raised before the BIA. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 986 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005). See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). 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. See Redd v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 838, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2008); Che v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 778, 782 (8th Cir. 2008); Onsongo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 849, 854 (8th Cir. 2006). The adverse credibility finding is dispositive of Tebit s withholdingof-removal claim, see Sheikh v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1077, 1081 (8th Cir. 2005), and we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. ยงยง 1229c(f) and 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, we deny the petition. ______________________________ -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.
