Ademo v. Lynch, No. 13-2621 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner traveled from Ethiopia, and entered the U.S. in 2002. He carried a valid Ethiopian passport and non-immigrant visitor’s visa issued under the name Hiko. Shortly thereafter, he sought asylum. Petitioner asserted that the Ethiopian government persecuted him on account of his political opinion, and that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were returned. Petitioner claimed that he was detained and beaten because of his membership in the Oromo ethnic group and in retaliation for his support of an organization called the Oromo Liberation Front. Petitioner admitted that he traveled under a false name and the IJ expressed concern about petitioner’s testimony that he was allowed to leave jail to take a school finishing exam during a period of alleged persecution, but granted petitioner’s application for asylum. In July 2006, however, the Department of Homeland Security moved to reopen the case based on newly discovered evidence relating to petitioner’s identity. The IJ granted the motion. Ultimately, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denials as supported by substantial evidence, but remanded for consideration of a request for voluntary departure.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA's decision to affirm the adverse credibility decision of the immigration judge was supported by substantial evidence and it was a sufficient basis to deny asylum and withholding of removal; the BIA did analyze petitioner's CAT claim separately and its finding, based on the record as a whole, that petitioner did not credibly establish that he was more likely than not to suffer torture if returned to Ethiopia is affirmed; the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen; the petition for review in No. 13-2621 is granted only insofar as the BIA must address petitioner's administrative appeal concerning voluntary departure.
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.