Maryam Ayoub Ibrahim Ayoub v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On Petition for Review of an Order of the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
NO. 05-1592
____________________
MARYAM AYOUB IBRAHIM AYOUB; AWADALLA SIDHOM ATTA ALLA
SIDHOM; MARINA AWADALLA SEDHOM AWADALLA,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board Nos. A95-476-626, A95-476-625, A95-476-624)
______________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 27, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 13, 2006)
OPINION
________________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
This is a Petition by Maryam Ayoub Ibrahim Ayoub, a national and citizen of
Egypt, for Review of an Order of The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her Application for Asylum, Withholding
of Removal and Protection under the Convention Against Torture. The other petitioners
are Ayoub’s husband, Awadalla Sidhom Atta Alla Sidhom, and her daughter, Marina
Awadalla Sedhom Awadalla. The husband and daughter did not file separate asylum
applications, but are potential beneficiaries of Ayoub’s application.
Ayoub seeks relief on the grounds that she had suffered persecution at the hands of
fanatic Muslim gangs because she was a Coptic Christian. However, her documentation
and her testimony, while long on allegations, are short on detail and devoid of any
corroboration. The BIA found that Ayoub’s testimony “lack[ed] sufficient consistency
and detail to provide a coherent account of the events allegedly resulting in [her] fear of
return to Egypt” and that Ayoub’s testimony “regarding material aspects of her claim
[was] only simplistic, vague, and generalized.” (A 4-5.) We agree. The Board also
properly noted inconsistencies in Ayoub’s accounts of her alleged persecution. Because
the parties are fully familiar with the background facts and procedural history we need not
set them forth, and limit our discussion to our ratio decidendi.
Our standard of review is extremely deferential; we must uphold the IJ’s findings
if they are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole,” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1991) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4)), and may not reject them “unless any reasonable adjudicator would

-- 2 of 4 --

3
be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). On this record we
are constrained to find that the decision of the BIA is supported by substantial evidence.
The evidence proffered by Ayoub was not sufficiently detailed and yet our
jurisprudence demands that testimony be specific and detailed. See Abdulrahman v.
Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 599 (3d Cir. 2003). Ayoub’s statements of facts lacks dates,
places, and other important details despite the IJ’s invitation to supply them. Moreover,
in view of the inconsistencies identified by the IJ, we cannot quarrel with the Agency’s
credibility determination. But even giving Ayoub the best of it, her testimony about
two incidents in 2001, some nonspecific statements about abuse and about having a hard
time in Egypt, and some claims about harassment of her father in 1996 and 1997 do not
compel a conclusion that Ayoub satisfied her burden of proof to show that she is entitled
to asylum. Equally important, no evidence was proffered that the alleged persecution was
by the government or by groups that the government cannot or will not control. Ayoub’s
claim is further undermined by the fact that Ayoub voluntarily returned to Egypt in 1999
and hoped to persuade her husband to live there as well; when she could not persuade
him, she came to the United States and applied for asylum.
Ayoub’s contention that the Board failed to consider that Egyptian Muslims may
have had mixed motives in harassing her was not raised before the Board. At all events,
it would not carry the day in view of the above analysis. Additionally, Ayoub’s CAT
claim has been waived as is her claim for withholding of removal for failure to address
these on appeal.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
The Petition for Review will be denied.

-- 4 of 4 --