Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02479/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02479-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Mohamed Turay
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2479

___________

Mohamed Turay, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

* Petition for Review of an Order of

v. * the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

* 

John Ashcroft, Attorney General * 

of the United States, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

___________

Submitted: February 18, 2005

Filed: April 26, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Mohamed Turay appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissal of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Turay argues that he suffered persecution

based on his imputed political opinion and that the immigration judge ( IJ) should not

have discounted his credibility. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460
1

Turay has a one-inch scar on his right arm, an inch mark on his left arm, and

a two-inch scar on his left leg.

-2-

I. Background

Turay is a citizen of Sierra Leone who came to the United States in 2001 and

timely sought refugee status. Turay contends that he was a victim of past persecution

for his political beliefs. In support, Turay recounted the incidents that precipitated his

departure from Sierra Leone during its civil war. Specifically, Turay was physically

assaulted and kidnapped by the Kamajors, a pro-government rebel group that invaded

his residence. At the time, Turay believed the Kamajors were anti-government. Turay

stated "they want me to join in their fight . . . but their fight [was] with the

government and I don't even know why they are fighting, but I don't want to join them

in that fight." Turay tried to hide from the rebels but they captured him. 

Once in Kamajor custody, Turay was questioned by the rebels about his

political allegiance. Turay testified that he did not tell the rebels his political opinion

because Turay believed the rebels would kill him due to his pro-government stance.

The rebels tried to recruit Turay but he refused. The rebels, assuming that Turay

opposed the government, repeatedly physically assaulted him, including the infliction

of knife wounds1

. The rebels also burned down Turay's house and forced Turay to

carry loads for them. Turay testified that the Kamajors "wanted to overthrow

[President Kabbah] because they wanted to take over [] power." 

Turay initially fled to Guinea to escape persecution. In his asylum application,

Turay indicated that he "managed to escape one night when everybody was asleep

and everything was quiet." However, in an interview before an asylum officer, Turay

stated that he was able to escape because government forces attacked and

overpowered the rebels. Turay blamed the inconsistency on errors in his written

application and insisted that his oral testimony was correct because the "person who

filled [out] the form misunderstood." The rest of Turay's family also fled Sierra

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460
2

Turay testified that his parents gave him his birth certificate and Sierra Leone

national identity card. At Turay's hearing, the INS submitted into evidence a Forensic

Document Laboratory report showing that Turay's birth certificate did not conform

to the standard for a birth certificate from Sierra Leone. Also, the authenticity of

Turay's identity card was questionable due to its "poor quality of production, lack of

natural wear characteristics and obscured signature in the data entry heading." 

-3-

Leone. Turay's parents went to Gambia but his siblings are still missing and presumed

dead. Turay came to the United States from Guinea. 

Turay applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT.

At Turay's hearing, the IJ asked Turay whether he knew of Foday Sankoh. Turay

replied that he did not. Turay's application was denied in large measure based upon

the IJ's findings that Turay's account and supporting evidence lacked credibility.2

Turay appealed to the BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision and dismissed Turay's

appeal finding that Turay failed to present credible evidence in support of his

application. Turay now appeals from the BIA's dismissal.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

We review questions of law de novo, Tang v. INS, 223 F.3d 713, 718–19 (8th

Cir. 2000); Ikenokwalu-White v. INS, 316 F.3d 798, 804 (8th Cir. 2003), and we

review an IJ's fact determinations by applying the substantial evidence test. MelecioSaquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 986–87 (8th Cir. 2003); Perinpanathan v. INS, 310

F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 2002). Under that test, we must affirm if the IJ's decision is

supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. Melecio-Saquil, 337

F.3d at 986–97; Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597. Fact determinations may be

reversed only if the petitioner demonstrates that the evidence was so compelling that

no reasonable fact finder could fail to find in favor of the petitioner. Melecio-Saquil,

337 F.3d at 986; Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597.

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460
-4-

B. Law Governing Asylum, Withholding of Removal, 

and Convention Against Torture

The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to a "refugee." 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(1999). Refugee is defined as "any person who is outside of the country

of his nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any

country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling

to avail himself [] of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well

found fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(1999). 

In resolving most asylum cases, "the critical inquiry is whether the applicant

has a well-founded fear of future persecution upon return to his or her country."

Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 597–598 (citing Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551,

553 (8th Cir. 1999)). A well-founded fear must be both "subjectively genuine and

objectively reasonable." Id.; Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997). "An

alien may establish the subjective element with credible testimony that he or she

genuinely fears persecution." Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2002)

(citing Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1390 (8th Cir.1993). Objectively, the alien

must show "credible, direct, and specific evidence that a reasonable person in the

alien's position would fear persecution if returned to the alien's native country." Id.

This fear "must have [a] basis in reality and must be neither irrational nor so

speculative or general as to lack credibility." Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 598. 

Where an alien establishes past persecution under one of the qualifying

grounds, there is a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution on the

same ground. Francois, 283 F.3d at 930; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The government

may rebut this presumption by showing a fundamental change in circumstances in the

alien's home country by a preponderance of the evidence. Francois, 283 F.3d at

930–31; Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 598; 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B). 

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460
3

Turay offered no new arguments or evidence for his CAT claim. The recent

Asylum Reports for Sierra Leone indicate that the situation has stabilized, with a

successful election in 2002. Moreover, there were no reported killings by the rebels

in the past two years. We therefore deny Turay's CAT claim.

-5-

An application for asylum automatically includes a request for withholding of

removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b); see INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 420 n.13 (1984). An

alien may not be removed if the alien shows there is a clear probability that his "life,

or freedom would be threatened in [the alien's] country because of the alien's race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion." 8

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)(1999); Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir. 2004).

The standard for withholding of removal, a clear probability of persecution, is more

rigorous than the well-founded fear standard for asylum. Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d

606, 613 (8th Cir. 2004); Wondmneh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1096, 1099 (8th Cir.

2004). An alien who fails to prove eligibility for asylum cannot meet the standard for

establishing withholding of removal. Ngure, 367 F.3d at 992. 

Under CAT, an alien must show that "it is more likely than not that he [] would

be tortured if returned to the proposed country of removal." Ngure, 367 F.3d at 992

(citing Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 599); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). In determining

eligibility under CAT, "all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture should

be considered including but not limited to: past torture inflicted upon the applicant;

the applicant's ability to relocate to another area of the country where torture is

unlikely; and gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights." Ngure, 367 F.3d

at 992; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3).3

C. Persecution Based on Turay's Imputed Political Opinion

Turay first attempts to show past persecution. Turay contends that he was

persecuted in the past based upon his imputed political opinion. Turay argues that the

Kamajors captured and beat him, believing Turay's silence meant that he had an

opposing political opinion. Turay believed the Kamajors were opposed to the

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460
-6-

government of Sierra Leone. Turay also argues that the beatings, stabbing, and forced

labor amounted to torture and persecution at the hands of the Kamajors.

When making a claim for persecution based on political opinion, it is essential

that the victim's political opinion motivates the persecution. INS v. Ellias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478 (1992). In Ellias, the Supreme Court indicated that persecution on

account of political opinion does not mean guerrilla kidnapping to "fill their ranks in

order to carry on their war against the government." Id. at 482. The victim's political

opinion matters, not the persecutor's. Id. "Thus the mere existence of a generalized

'political' motive underlying the guerrillas' forced recruitment is inadequate to

establish (and, indeed, goes far to refute) the proposition that [Petitioner] fears

persecution on account of political opinion, as § 101(a)(42) requires." Id. (emphasis

in original). We hold that substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that

Turay was forced to act as a porter for the rebels because the rebels needed a porter

and not because of Turay's unrevealed political opinion.

Turay also failed to demonstrate, by compelling evidence, a well-founded fear

of future persecution. Turay claims he fears that he will be persecuted by the

Kamajors upon returning to Sierra Leone and that there is potential for general civil

unrest. Turay offered no evidence to support the contention that the Kamajors would

target him for mistreatment. Turay now recognizes that the Kamajors are progovernment. The Kamajors would have no political motive to persecute Turay in the

future because Turay also holds a pro-government stance. Finally, as noted by the IJ,

Turay could relocate within Sierra Leone because the Kamajors do not have a nationwide presence. Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Turay did not

satisfactorily establish fear of future persecution. 

D. IJ's Credibility Finding

The IJ made an adverse credibility finding based on the documents Turay

offered, Turay's ignorance as to identity of the leader of the Revolutionary United

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460
-7-

Front (RUF), Foday Sankoh, and his ignorance of the political ideology of the

Kamajors. "The IJ's adverse credibility findings, however, 'are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.' 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(4)(B)." Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 952 (6th Cir. 2004).

Turay argues that the IJ should not have made an adverse credibility finding

because the documents Turay offered only go to prove nationality, Turay's parents

gave him the documents, and he had no control or part in making them. Turay also

highlights his lack of education and total ignorance of the rebel groups and their

leaders. While extensive knowledge of domestic politics within an applicant's home

country should not be a condition of asylum, an applicant relying on a claim of

political persecution must nonetheless state a persuasive case that it has actually

occurred.

The IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for his credibility findings. These

included the numerous discrepancies in Turay's testimony and the false documents

he submitted in support of his claim. Turay testified that he received his new birth

certificate from his parents at some point in 1996, but on cross-examination, Turay

claimed this birth certificate was not issued until 2000. However, the official date of

issue listed on Turay's birth certificate is 1974. Turay did not explain this

discrepancy. Turay also testified that his old birth certificate was lost during the war

and the original could not be found. On cross-examination, Turay stated that his

parents took the old birth certificate back and got a new one. Turay's parents "had to

leave it there, because nobody could even read it, it was so worn out." Again Turay

did not explain this discrepancy. Turay said "Well, my—that is what I said, but maybe

it is (sic) lost or they left it there. I don't know. I'm not sure."

Turay first testified that he received his identity card in 2001, but on crossexamination Turay indicated he received it in 1999. Turay testified that his parents

submitted his birth certificate to get the identity card. He indicated his parents paid

a fee and the card was issued a week later. On cross-examination, Turay indicated that

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460
-8-

he had his photo taken in 1999 for the identity card and gave it to his parents who

applied for him. Due to a change in procedure, Turay was required to apply in person

so his parents took him. 

The identity card had an issue date of 1996 and not 1999 or 2001. When asked

to clarify the date of issue, Turay stated "Well, maybe my father asked them to push

the date of issuance a little back so it would not be seen as a new I.D." When asked

why Turay's father would do that, Turay replied "I don't know why they did that,

because he just told me that is how he did it."

The IJ found it implausible that Turay, having lived in Sierra Leone during the

civil war, did not know that Foday Sankoh led the opposition RUF rebel forces. The

IJ also found it implausible that Turay would not have known, or would not have

learned, that the Kamajors supported the government. Foday Sankoh was as much a

public figure in Sierra Leone as was its president. Given the present record, we are

not persuaded to reverse the IJ's credibility determination.

For the foregoing reasons we affirm the decision of the BIA.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2479 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/26/2005 Entry ID: 1895460