John Vah v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 08-2983 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - immigration. Substantial evidence supports BIA determination that petitioner did not meet his burden of proof for asylum because he was not subjected to past persecution in Liberia and does not have well-founded fear of future persecution.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2983 ___________ John G. Vah, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. 1 Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * ___________ Submitted: December 2, 2009 Filed: December 7, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. John G. Vah, a native and citizen of Liberia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We conclude substantial evidence supports the BIA s determination that Vah did not meet his burden of proof for asylum because he was not subjected to 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). past persecution in Liberia and he does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution in Liberia. See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950, 956 (8th Cir. 2008) (past persecution); Vonhm v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 825, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (well-founded fear of future persecution). Vah s withholding-of-removal and CAT claims--which carry more rigorous burdens of proof--necessarily fail as well, see Gitimu v. Holder, 581 F.3d 769, 774 (8th Cir. 2009), and Vah did not meet his burden for a grant of humanitarian asylum, see Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Vah s petition for review is denied. _____________________________ -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.
