*1 944 have held that note that courts
Wе also
FONGWO, Petitioner,
36,
Jean
Washington, 541
124
v.
U.S.
Crawford
1354,
(2004), in
- - -, U.S. 126 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d-(2005) (No. 05-7031); Luci
ano, Martinez, at F.3d 243). addition, contrary to Brown’s stan
dard-of-proof argument, “[njothing suggests sentencing judges
Booker required sentence-enhancing to find beyond
facts doubt reasonable under the
advisory regime.” Guidelines United Pirani, v. n. 4
States F.3d -
(8th (en Cir.) banc), denied, cert.
-,
126 S.Ct.
(2005).
Accordingly, judgment we affirm the
the district court. appointed Appellate
1. Alberto Gonzales has been suant to Federal Rule of Procedure Attorney serve as General of the 43(c). United States, respondent pur- and is substituted as *2 Park, Kum, argued, Takoma
Joseph M. MD, petitioner. for argued, Assistant
Christopher Wang, C. Justice, General, Attorney Dept, U.S. (Blair T. DC O’Connor Washington, Justice, Gross, on Dept, L. Mark brief), appellee. BYE, HEANEY, and Before COLLOTON, Judges. Circuit
COLLOTON, Judge. Circuit Petitioner, himself who identifies Cameroon, a native of Fongwo, Jean Noel removal, withholding of asylum, applied for under the Convention protection Judge Immigration An Torture. Against filed petitioner application, denied his reconsider. a motion motions, BIA af- and the IJ denied Peti- without that decision firmed decision challenges agency’s tioner reconsider, and reopen and motions to review. deny we I. over the dispute involves a
This case hearing be- identity. In the court, al- immigration fore the on account leged genuine. that he fled Cameroon cate the name “Tamu” were Democratic The court further observed that the Social (“SDF”) father was “Frederick Front and the Southern Came- Council, and that politiсal organiza- roon National grandfather had “Tamu” in his name as country. in that tions Petitioner arrived *3 gave weight well. The little a to second bearing passport the United States bearing birth certificate “Fong- the name the name “Jean as well as a birth wo,” it because was not authеnticated in identity certificate and national card in the 1287.6, § accordance with 8 C.F.R. and pro- name of “Jean Tamu.” he was While found that petitioner present failed to “ob- by an officer at Miami airport, cessed credible, jective, corroborating and docu- however, petitioner stated that his name is mentation” to actually show that he was actually Fongwo.” “Jean Noel Petitioner Fongwo.” “Jean Noel The IJ also was also entered the United States with two letters, unpersuaded by the SDF which SDF cards and two letters she found vague, general, lacking to be and bearing the name Fongwo.” “Jean Noel detail, gave in weight little to the SDF Petitioner testified at the administrative cards in the name of “Fongwo,” finding hearing Fong- that his name is “Jean that “anybody get can card SDF wo,” that he never used the name approximately 50 cents.” “Tamu.” He sаid that he in when arrived determining petition- addition to States, presented United authorities er misrepresented identity, his the IJ with a false in passport photo- which a questioned credibility petitioner’s of graph of himself had been substituted for claim that he was a member of the in SDF government, the real “Jean Tamu.” The Cameroon, upon arriving because however, presented evidence from a foren- States, speech United where freedom of sic document examiner that passport guaranteed, petitioner in- did become genuine was consistent with Cаmeroon volved in the SDF. The IJ concluded that passports Immigration on file at the petitioner’s persecution claim of based on Service, Naturalization that no alterations membership in the SDF was undermined it, had photo been made to and that the by further the fact that his mothеr was a had not been switched. The examiner also Cameroon, member the SDF in and that (bear- determined that the birth certificate she continued live there without incident “Tamu”), ing the name the national identi- petitioner departed after in 1999. With ty “Tamu”), card (bearing the name and regard overall for re- the SDF (bearing “Fong- cards the name lief, the IJ noted that in the case of Matter wo”) were genuine consistent with docu- 0-D-, (BIA 21 I & N Dec. file, ments on and there was no evidence 1998), BIA held that “documents of that the documents had been altered. identity that are deemed to be frаudulent granting After petitioner a continuance then undermine credibility and affect the gather further documentation regarding of the whole entire claim.” The IJ dis- identity (A.R.285-89), his eventually cussed govern- claim that the made an credibility finding adverse as to confidentiality ment violated the rules of 8 identity, 208.6(a) claimed concluding § C.F.R. disclosing the name applicant was not “Jean Noel “Fongwo” to officials of gov- the Cameroon Fongwo” in fact “Jean Tamu.” The making inquiries ernment the course of court relied on forensic evidence that the asylum application. relevant to the identity and birth transgression petition- certifi- found no Tamu,” and that main in the United was “Jean States.” INS v. Do true name er’s 314, 323, herty, 502 U.S. was not disclosed. S.Ct. (1992). Motions reopen L.Ed.2d peti that because The IJ determined new must state facts that material to identity and sub misrepresented tioner proceeding the outcome and were support mitted fraudulent documents neither available nor at the discoverable claim, asylum was § hearing. 8 C.F.R. peti Accordingly, the IJ barred frivolous. words, grant In other an IJ should motions receiving from the tioner benefits only if the new present evidencе Immigration under “could not by ed the exercise of due dili 1158(d)(6). Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. See gence have been discovered earlier.” *4 appeal not the IJ’s order Petitioner did (7th INS, 457, Krougliak v. 460 BIA, motion to the instead filed a to but Cir.2002) of Coelho, I & (quoting Matter 20 decision, and the IJ’s reopen (BIA 1992)). 464, N Dec. 472 n. Wе stay denied the and to removal. IJ the IJ’s to deny petition review decision motions, to the petitioner appealed and motion to reopen er’s abuse of discre BIA, which affirmed without 323, Doherty, at tion. 502 U.S. 112 S.Ct. INS, 594, v. F.3d Feleke 597-98 II. Cir.1997). (8th claims Petitioner the that petitioner’s concluded mo by dеnying her his abused discretion provide failure to the Catholic Testimonial Regard to reopen tions and reconsider.2 Book, Corps Peace Certificate of Attend petitioner claims ing reopen, his motion to ance, Identity the National Card at by refus the IJ her discretion abused hearing attorney’s of his ad prior because presented to not ing consider new evidence new, unavailable, vice did render them prior hearing. the This new at evidence undiscoverable, by as required Book, a included a Testimonial Catholic § was not This conclusion Attend Corps Peace Certificate of admit an abuse discretion. Petitioner ance, and a second Cameroon National in his sworn declaration that the docu ted Card, Identity issued to all of which were time prior ments existed at the of the in a sworn “Fongwo.” Petitioner assertеd attorney’s hearing, alleged and his advice declaration that these documents forego presentation documents “not available” at the time of the they not mean that were unavailable. does hearing, he had on the ad relied a decision Petitioner his counsеl made him attorney, who did not ask vice of documents, a mo produce not to make these documents available. designed permit tion to is not reopen deportation opportunity a second to select parties Motions to disfavored, presented. as should be proceedings particularly which evidence Therefore, challenge “every advantage reject petitioner’s to the of the we delay works merely reopen. to re- of motion to deportable alien who to the denial wishes Where, here, jurisdiction without We lack to consider as the BIA affirms 2. opinion, decision the final the IJ’s becomes BIA should convened agency. 8 C.F.R. decision panel decision. three-member to review the IJ’s 1003.1(e)(4). Accordingly, § we review Ng Ashcroft, v. ure v. IJ's decision as that of BIA. Gebrehiwot Cir.2004). (8th Cir.2004). (8th Ashcroft, 374 F.3d standard, sought
In that of his motiоn that portion This more deferential than the decision, initial peti- reconsideration of the governs substantial evidence standard that neglected decisions, tioner claimed that the IJ cer- our direct review of BIA reflects testimony give tain and failed to sufficient a need to deter applicants “improper- weight suggesting to facts that he is “Jean ly prolonging] process by the removal fil- Fongwo.” reconsider, Petitioner also asserted ing motions to peti- instead of that the initial IJ’s decision failed to artic- tioning judicial for immediate review of an fully legal ulate standard for determin- initial adverse decision.” Id. On a frivolous, ing that an and to review the denial of the motion recon- totality sider, failed to examine the of the evi- jurisdiction we lack to consider the presented. dence Petitioner reasserted as denying merits the IJ’s initiаl order government well that claim, breached his asylum id.
rights
confidentiality by disclosing
record,
may
underlying
we
review the
as
“Fongwo”
part
of inquiries made
necessary,
to determine whether
government
to the
of Cameroon. See 8
abused her discretion
denying the mo-
208.6(a).
Esenwah,
C.F.R.
tion.
largely That evidence government.
sented Fongwo’s national
indicated
identity and birth certificate-all Tamu-may
which were of Jean opined genuine. Accordingly,
be