Wendkouni Zongo v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 21-3847 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, a native of Côte d’Ivoire and citizen of Burkina Faso was admitted to the United States in 2016 with an F-1 student visa. Petitioner soon withdrew from the university, terminating his student visa. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on his fears of harm from his political opinions and affiliation with the Congress for Democracy and Progress. Three years later, he updated his affidavit with two additional bases for fear of future persecution: his Christian faith and Fulani ethnicity. Petitioner petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protections. Petitioner argued that the BIA abused its discretion by finding no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
The Eighth Circuit denied the petition. The court held that because the IJ identified specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve Petitioner’s testimony, sufficient evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum or withholding of removal. Petitioner argued that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for his asylum and withholding-of-removal applications should not foreclose his application for CAT protections. Because Petitioner did not raise these arguments before the BIA, they are unexhausted, and the Eighth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to consider them.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Petition for Review - Immigration. Because the IJ identified specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve petitioner's testimony, sufficient evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination, and the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ's denial of asylum or withholding of removal; on appeal before the BIA, petitioner did not raise any of the CAT-protection arguments he presents in his brief to this court, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the arguments.
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.