Honora ble Milton I . Shadur, Unit ed S t ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * I llinois , sitti ng by

desig nation. For convenie nce, a ll further c itations to Title 8 provisions will t ake the form “Sec tion --,” 1 omitti ng the pre fatory

“8 U.S.C.” NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0374n.06 F iled: Jun e 5, 2007 No. 05-3898 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT AMADOUKANE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON APP EA LF RO M T HE B OA RD ) O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS AL B ERT O R . G ON Z AL ES, Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, )

) Re sp on de nt. )
Before: DA UG HTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and SH ADUR, D istrictJudge. *
Shad ur, District J u dge. Mauritanian c itiz en Amadou K ane ( “Ka ne”) bring s this appeal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1158(a) a nd (b), seekingrevie w of a decision by the Board of I mmigration 1 Ap pe a ls ( “ B oa

rd ” ) t hat den ie d him a sylum . K ane c on te nd s th a t th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e (“ I J,” w ho se op ini on the B oa rd a ff ir me d s um mar ily

) e rr e d ( 1) in d isc ounti ngKa ne ’s c re dib ili ty

and (2 ) i n concludingthat even if

the I J had found his te stimony cre dible, Kane had not established a rec ord of past per secution or a

well-founde d fea

r of f uture p ersecution. Kane also seeks w ithholding of deportation. Bec ause the re is substantial evidenc e to support the I J ’s conc lusion that Kane has notNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

I n his brief Kane also ref

ers to the C onvention Ag ainst Torture (“Convention”)
. But be fore 2 the I J Kane expli citly

waived any relief to w hich he mig ht have be en entitled under the Convention, and he ha s of fe re d n o a rgume nt a s to wh y

we sh ou ld i g no re that e xplic it w a ive r- -o the r t ha n to state ips e dix it that his Convention claims were “ err oneously withdrawn by

his attorney .” We there fore ne e d n ot c on sid e r a

ny Con ve nti on

iss ue s. - 2 - demonstrated a

well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution, we must deny Kane ’s petition for re view. 2
Ba ckg round
Kane enter ed the United States w ith a Mauritanian pa ssport and a va lid B-1 visa in May 20 01
. As his vis a pe rm itt e d on ly a sh or t sta y in the Un ite d St a te s, Ka

ne a pp lie d f or po lit ic a l a sylum
. Bor n in Mauritania in 1967, Ka ne is a member of the Fulani ethnic g roup that has historically been dis c ri min a te d a g a ins t and op pr e sse d b y

oth e r d omi na

nt ethn ic g ro up s and Ma

ur ita nia n a uth or iti e s. Acc ording to Kane, it is beca use of his e thnicity , his f

amily ’s political dissent and his own politi cal opinions and activity --o r at least the political opinions and ac tivity imputed to him by

the authorities--that he fe ars pe rsec ution if he retur ns to Mauritania, a

nd he thus seeks a sy lum in the Un ite d St a te s.
Kane ’s ac count beg ins with the imprisonm ent of his brother in 1 9 87 afte r havingbeen
acc used and c onvicted of plotting a coup ag ainst the Mauritania n g overnme nt. Kane’ s brother w as fre ed in 1991. I n 1989 Kane ’s father was jailed for one wee k when he protested publicly ag ainst the fo rc e d e xile of

tho us and s o f M a

ur ita nia n c iti zen s to Se ne g a l.
Kane himself first ran into trouble with the police in 1989. I n that y ear , while sear ching forNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 3 - his family ’s g razing sheep outside his villag e, he w as assa ulted and detained by individuals of a rival ethnic g roup who be at him and threatened to kill him but ultimately turned him over to Ma uritanian authorities. Kane was then he ld for two we eks at a police station, where he wa s regularly beate n, forc ed to “ work on stones” and had his life threatened. Af ter two we eks Ka

ne wa s relea sed to the
re sp on sib ili ty

of his pa re nts , a nd he wa s for c e d to pr omi se that he wo uld no t le a ve the vil la g e a g a in to look for his family ’s missing shee p.
Kane ’s next nega

tive encounte r with Mauritania n authorities was thre e y ear s later in 1992, when police in his vil lag e broke up a cultura l c elebr ation during the I nternational Week of Tre es and
arr ested Ka

ne and se vera l of the ot her or g anizers and pa rticipants. At the police station Kane a nd the oth e r a

rr e ste e s we re kic ke d, be a te n w ithsti c ks and a c c us e d o f o rg anizi nga

po lit ic a l e ve nt a g a ins t the g overnme nt rather

than a simple educ ational and c ultural ce lebration. After two day s Kane and the oth e rs we re re le a se d, a g a in t o th e re sp on sib ili ty of his pa re nts and the vil la g e e lde rs . Five y ear s later in 1997, while Ka ne wa s volunteeringwith the U.S. Peace Corps, he wa s
a g a in d e ta ine d b y

the po lic e , b e ate n an d ac c us e d of pr ov idi ng inf or ma tio n a bo ut t he g ov e rnme nt t o the Pe a c e Cor

ps . Kane did not testify

that he wa s held for a

ny particula r leng th o f t ime, but the police did sea

rch his home a

nd interrog ate him at the station. Two y ear s lat er i n 1 9 9 9 , Kane was fir ed fr om his job wit h an ag ricultural de velopment ag ency afte r he r efuse d to take par t in what he viewe d as extensively corr upt pr actice s that exploi ted po or fa rm e rs . A ft e r h is t e rm inatio n K ane wa s r e qu ir e d to re po rt to a po lic e statio n e ve ry

mon th s oNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 4 - that the police could keep trac k of him a nd question him r eg arding the bank with which he worke d. Ka ne ha d to c on tin

ue his mon thl y re po rt s un til he le ft Ma ur ita nia in M ay

20 01 . A s th os e mon thl y repor ts went on, the police be g an to inquire more ex t ensively into Kane’ s politi cal a ctivities and aff iliations (Kane ha d been a member of

the “UFD” opposition party for many y ear s), and he beg an to fea r for his life in J anuar

y 2000. Kan e d i d not, however , repor t any phy sical abuse or any overnig ht or long er de tention in that period.
Fr om his first arr est in 1989 to his departure from Maur itania in 2001, it appear s that Kane dealt with those adver sities quite ably
. He continued his sc hooling, ultimately ear ning a n advanc ed deg ree in economics. S ometime there afte r he obta ined employ ment with the “Maur itanian Cabinet Adviser f or Ag ri culture a

nd Deve lopment Project,” fr om which he wa s terminated late r in 1999 afte r his corruption complaints. Then in May 2000--dur ing the period he was re quired to re p o rt to the po lic e e a c h mo nth

-- he se c ur e d a jo b wi th the “ B ur e a u o f S tud y fo r A g ri c ult

ur e De ve lop me nt” (“SERADE” ), which a

ppear s to have be en a pr ivate instituti on that car ried o u t projects for

the Ma ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt. Kane rema ined with that job until he was g rante d a two month vaca tion in M ay 20 01 and se ize d th a t op po rt

un ity to t ra ve l to the Un ite d St a te s a nd a pp ly fo r a sylum
. I n October

2003 an I J denied Ka ne’s a pplicat i o n, resting that conclusion on two independe ntly

sufficie nt gr ounds: (1) that Ka ne’s testim ony was not credible and ( 2) that eve n had that no t be e n th e c a se , K ane had no t me t hi s b ur de n o f d e mon str a tin g pa st p e rs e c uti on or a we llfounded f ear of perse cution based on any of the protec ted g rounds. As to the cr edibility finding , the IJ p o i n t e d t o m u l t i p l e “ m a t e r i a l d i s c r e p an c i e s ” i n K an e ’ s t e s t i m o n y . A s f o r t h e o t h e r i s s u e , t h e IJNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 5 - conclude d that Kane ’s re cord of imprisonment and abuse did not amount to pa st pe rsec ution. And g ive n K ane ’s e xten de d p e ri od of re sid e nc e (s tay ingmor e tha n a y e ar a ft e r he be g an to fe ar f or his life in J anuar

y 2000), his educa

tion and employ

ment in Mauritania c ombined with his appare nt fre edom to obtain a passpor t and visa to the United States, the I J conclude d that Kane did not have
a we ll-founded f

ear of future perse cution.
On J une 14, 2005 the Boa rd aff irmed the I J ’s decision without opinion. Kane then filed a tim e ly pe tit ion fo r r e vie w o f t

he B oa rd ’s de c isi on

wi th t his Court
. Asy lum We have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1252(a )( 1 ) t o hear petitions for revie w of fina l B oa rd re mov a l or de rs in a sylum c a se s ( Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6 Cir. 2004)). Section th 1158(a) and (b) g ive the Attorne y Gene ral the discre tion to gra nt asy lum to any

qualifying “ ref

ug ee” ( id .) . In tu

rn the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l ha s d e le g a te d th a t a uth or ity to t he B oa rd and its I Js ( id. at 702 n.1). Thus, whe n prese nted with an application for asylum, an I J must decide ( Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 389 ( 6 Cir. 1998)(interna l quotation marks omitted)): th (1) whe ther the a

pplicant qualifies a s a “re fug ee” as def ined in §1101(a) (42)( A), a nd (2) whe ther the a

pplicant merits a f

avora ble exercise of

discretion by

the [i mm ig r a ti o nju d g e ].
Withre sp e c t to that f

ir st s te p, Se c tio n 1 10 1( a )( 42 )( A) de fi ne s a “ re fu g e e ” a s a

n a lie n w ho is:

un a ble or un wi lli ngto r e tur

n to , and is un a

ble or un wi lli ng

to a va il h ims e lf

or he rs e lfNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 6 - of the pr ote c tio n of

, [his or he r ho me c ountr y ] b e c a us e of pe rs e c ution or a w ellfo un de d f e ar o f pe rs e c uti on on a c c ount of ra c e , re lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a par ticular socia l gr oup, or political opinion. Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 529 ( 6 Cir. 2006) (interna l c itations a nd quotation marks omitted) th

re c e ntl y su mma ri zed the burd e n th a t r e qu ir e me nt p la c e s o n a n a sylum a pp lic ant:
Th e a sylum

a pp lic ant b e ars the burd e n o f e sta bli sh ingthat he or

sh e qu alif

ie s a s a ref ug ee e ither bec ause he or she ha s suffer ed past perse cution or bec ause he or she has a well-founde d fea

r of future persec ution. Once the a pplicant shows that he or sh e ha s su ff

e re d f ro m pa st p e rs e c uti on , th e a pp lic ant i s p re su med to have a we llfo u n d edfe ar

o f f u tu re p er s ec u t i o n . T h i s p re s u mp t i o nca nb e r eb u t t edo n l y t h ro u gh establishing by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that since the pe rsec ution occurr ed, conditions in the applicant’s c ountry have c hang ed to such a n extent that the applicant no long er has a well-founde d fea r of being perse cuted if he wer e to re turn. Our statutory

role in the re view of such Boa rd deter minations is a limited one. We revie w the B oa rd ’s fa c tua l c on c lus ion s at st e p o ne on ly fo r s ub sta nti a l e vid e nc e , an d w e mus t c on sid e r t ho se de te rm inatio ns “ c on c lus ive un le ss a ny re a so nable adjudi c a tor

wo uld be c omp e lle d to c on c lud e to the c on tr ary” (S e c tio n 1 25 2( b) (4 )( B ); Yu , 364 F.3d at 702-03). Unde r that standar d, as re viewing
c ourt s o ft re pe a t, e ve n if

we we re to dis a g re e wi th the I J’s fa c tua l de te rm inatio ns , th a t a lon e wo uld
no t pe rm it u s to se t a sid e the re a so ne d c on c lus ion s b e low un le ss t he e vid e nc e “ no t on ly

su pp or ts a contra ry conclusion, but indeed c om pe ls it” ( Ou da v . I

NS , 324 F.3d 445, 451 ( 6 Cir. 2003)(interna l th quotation marks omitted; emphasis in origina l)). Finally , when a s here the Boa rd summarily aff

irms a n I J ’s decision without opinion, we look to t hat ju dg e ’s op ini on

fo r s ub sta

nti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the jud g e ’s c on c lus ion s ( Yu , 364 F.3d atNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 7 - 702). And a s a further constraint on our role, we must alwa y s be mindful of the g ener ous definition of “substantial e vidence ” announc ed by the Supreme Court in INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1993) a

nd basica lly

codified in Sec tion 1252(b)(4)( B) ( Yu , id .).
I t is ag ainst that backdr op that we must deter mine whether

Kane has succe ssfully borne the burden of “produc ing evidenc e that he has suffe red pa st persec ution or has a we ll-founded f ear of future pe rsec ution” ( id ., 364 F.3d at 703) i f he wer e to be returned to Maur itania. B eca use as state d
e arl ie r t he I J con c lud e d th a t K ane fa ile d to me e t th a t bu rd e n f or tw o inde pe nd e ntl y su ff

ic ie nt r e a so ns , and bec ause w e find that the I J ’s deter minations as to the sec ond g round ar e supported by substantial
e v i d e n c e , w e n e e d

n o ta d dr e s s t h e i s s u e o f

K an e ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y.
I n an eff ort to me et his bur den of showing past perse cution, Kane testified to multipl e run- ins with Mauritanian a

uthorities. First i n 1989 was his two wee k imprisonment afte r beingambushed by a riva l ethnic g roup, duringwhich time he was threatened, beate n repe atedly and for ced into har d la bo r. Ne xt we re the po lic e be a tin g s and tw o d ay s in

c us tod y in 1 99 2 w he n th e po lic e br ok e up his I nterna tiona l We e k o f T r e e s c e le b r a ti o n . F iv e y e ar s late r in 1 9 9 7 h e w a s a g a in d e ta in e d by the po lic e , in te rr og a te d, be a te n and ac c us e d o f p ro vid inginf or ma tio n to the Pe a c e Cor

ps . F ina lly

in 1999 (af ter his t ermination from his development ag ency job), his monthly repor ting to the police with the ensuing interrog ations into his pol itical activity beg an, continuing until his depar ture for the United States in 2001. As noted, the I J conclude d that Kane ’s history of trouble with Maur itanian authorities did notNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 8 - amount to past perse cution. Wit h no definition of “pe rsec ution” as Section 1101(a )(42) (A) use s that te rm ( Mikhailev itch , 146 F. 3 d at 3 8 9 ), the statute pr ovides littl e g uidance in review ing the I J ’s conclusion. Al i v . A sh c ro

ft , 36 6 F .3 d 40 7, 41 0 (6 Cir . 2 00 4) , q uo tin g e arl ie r a

uth or ity , r e c on fi rm s th that “ [p]e rs e c uti on

is a n e xtre me c on c e pt t

hat do e s n ot i nc lud e e ve ry so rt of tr e a tme nt o ur

so c ie ty reg ards a s offe nsive.” More over, Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 390 instructs that only if we de cide that any rea sonable fa ctfinder

would be compe lled to concl u d e that Ka ne had “ suffe red phy sical punishment, infliction of harm, or a signific ant depr ivation of liberty o n ac count of”one of the pr ote c te d g ro un ds may

we re ve rs e the I J’s deter mina tio n h e re that K ane did no t su ff e r p a st perse cution.
On t h at s core the I J conclude d that Kane ’s re peate d alterc ations with the police did not amount to pe rsec ution be cause the level of phy sical mistreatment a

nd deprivation of liberty

suffe red by Kane did not rise to the level of pe rsec ution. We note that Kane did not report that any of the multipl e bea

tings (oc curr ing se vera l y ear s apar t from ea ch other ) re sulte d in injuries requiring medical tre atment or pe rmane nt injury (at wor st he sustained sca rs on his knees f

rom being forc ed to kneel and w ork on stones during h i s 1989 imprisonment). One witness did testify that Kane
a pp e are d to be br

uis e d a nd his c lot he s to rn a ft e r r e tur

nin g fr om pr iso n in 19 92
. As fo r h is t ota l ti me of dete ntion that appear s to comprise two we eks in 1989, two day s in 1992, some number of hour s in 1997 and his monthly

repor ts to the police beg inning in 1999.
There surely

is casela w that ar g uably

supports the conc lusion that a rec ord such a s this does not compel a f

inding of past perse cution by

the I J
. To look outside our Circuit for a moment, AlNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 9 - Tawm v . A sh c ro

ft , 363 F.3d 740, 743 ( 8 Cir. 2004) held that “[t] he mer e pre sence of some phy sical th harm doe s not require a finding of past per secution.” There the asylum applicant had be en deta ined
o n l y o n t wo o cc as i o n s fo u r y ea rs ap ar tfo r a fe w h o u rs ea ch t i m e, l ea d i n g Al Tawm to hold that such “[b] rief periods of detention do not nece ssarily constitute perse cution,” and to state further that the E ig h th Ci r c u it h a d “ r e

je c te d c la im s inv o lv in g e qu a ll y s e r io u s o r mo r e s e r io u s abuse” ( id. ). And Da nd an v . A sh c ro

ft , 339 F.3d 567, 574 (7 Cir. 2003) held that a bea ting r esulting in a

swollen fac e th did not compel a finding of per secution, abse nt some specific evidenc e of the sever ity of the be ating such as a rec ord of br oken bones. Dandan , id. also found that a de tention of three day s without food d i d n o t require a finding of past per secution (se e also Sk ala k v . I NS , 9 4 4 F
. 2 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 5 (7 Cir. th 1991)).
We a

re min df ul t hat it is rarely , if

e ve r, the c a se that any

pr ior de c isi on sta nd s tr uly on a ll fours with the re cord w e ar e pre sented for revie w. B ut give n the weig ht of the ca selaw that we have survey ed, Kane’s detentions and interrog ations from 1992 throug h 2000 do not cre ate a rec ord that
wo uld c omp e l us to r e ve rs e the I J’s d e te rm inatio n th a t th os e ins tanc e s d id no t amo un t to pa st pe rs e c uti on

-- e sp e c ia lly

c on sid e ri ngKa

ne ’s la c k o f spe c if

ic ity a s to his a c tua l tr e a tme nt o n th os e
occa sions (see Dandan , 339 F.3d at 574).
To be sure , Kane ’s testimony about the beatings a

nd harsh labor

that he endu re d fo r two
wee ks while imprisoned in 1989 might we ll present a dif fe re nt story . Kane ’s most detailed descr iption of his treatment at that time came in his Personal Dec laration:No. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 10 - The a uthorities humili ated us by making us kneel on stones in the hot sun for hours e a c h d ay , w e we re be a te n w ithwe ig hts , p ut int o the ja g ua r po sit ion , tie d s pr e a d- e a g le and beaten.
Whil e Ka ne did no t pr ov ide c omp ara

ble de ta il in his he ari ngte sti mony , th e a c c ount i n h is Personal De clar ation (assumed to be cre dible for present purposes) ce rtainly sounds like persec ution to us. But that would not chang e t h e outcome here , for the I J nonetheless f ound that there was sufficie nt e vidence to suppor t the g overnme nt’s rebuttal case that due to e vents in K ane ’s history since that time and c hang ed conditions in Mauritania g ener ally , Kane no longe r has a well-founde d fea r of perse cution should he be returne d t h er e (see Kol iad a v . I NS , 259 F.3d 482, 487 ( 6 Cir. th 2001)).
For

that purpose the I J pointed o u t t h at at t h e time of Ka ne’s imprisonment and phy sical abuse in 1989, thousands of his fe llow citiz ens -- including those from his ow n ethnic g roup -- wer e be ingfo rc ibl y

de po rt e d to Se ne g a l. I n contra st, Kane w as rele ased to his pa rents af ter two we eks and wa s allowed to re main in Mauritania f or more tha

n ten y ear s befor e he de parte d on his own initiative. During that time he was a ble to continue his education leading to multi ple hig her de g ree s and to obtain employ

ment with the Mauritanian Cabinet Adviser f or Ag riculture a

nd Deve lopment Pr oje c t and

the n w ithSER

AD E, bo th c los e ly

ass oc ia te d w iththe Ma

ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt. And whateve r depr ivation of liberty might be a scribed to his monthly repor ting to the police beg inning in 1999, it did not preve nt him from obtaining a passport fr om the Mauritanian g overnme nt and a vis a t o t h e Un ited States and fr om depar ting the c ountry

throug h g overnme nt authorities at Nouakc hott airport under the ruse of

an extended vac ation.No. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

Two of our

unpublished opinions, Fall v. Gonzales , No. 05-4470, 2007 WL627380, at *1, 4 3 (6 Cir. Feb. 20 , 2007) and Diallo v. Gonzales , No. 03-4068, 2005 WL1901829, at *2-4 (6 Cir. th th Au g . 8 , 2 00 5) , f

ound that State De pa

rtme nt r e po rt s o n M a

ur ita nia pr ov ide d s ub sta

nti a l evi de nc e to s u p port I J s’ deter

minations that conditions had significa ntly chang ed for

historically

oppresse d ethnic g roups (including Fulani) in Mauritania. - 11 - Koliada , 259 F.3d at 488 is but one ex ample of the decisions findi ng that evidenc e such a s an applica nt’s extended period of r esidenc y in his home c ountry

afte r an instanc e of pa st persec ution,
or su c h a s an a

pp lic ant’ s f

re e do m to ob tai n a pas sp or t f ro m hi s h ome g ov e rnme nt a nd de pa rt his country , rea sonably supports a conc lusion of chang ed conditions that rebut a ny infere nce of

a cur rent well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution based on those ac ts of past perse cution (see also NovoaUm an ia v . I

NS , 8 96 F .2 d 1 , 3 -4 (1 Cir . 1 99 0) ; Ro dr igu e z- Ri v e ra v . I

NS , 848 F.2d 998, 1006 ( 9 Cir. st th 19 88 )( pe r c ur iam) ). Mo re ov e r, the I J p oin te d to the 20 02 State De pa rtme nt R e po rt

on Ma ur ita nia (“Repor t”) for evidenc e that the backg round environment in Mauritania has signific antly chang ed since the pe ak of those tr o u b l es ar o u nd 1989-91, including a re duction in ethnic tension and the
re tur n o f e xile s. I n that reg ard Kane arg ues t hat s uch S tate Department reports “should not be take n as the immutable g ospel truth” and that the I J made selective use of t he R eport, thereby making any conclusions drawn from it unreliable . Whil e we have r ecog nized reasona ble ave nues for

the impeachme nt of such State Depa rtment repor

ts (see Koliada , 259 F.3d at 487-88), w e ca nnot say that th e I J’s u se of the Re po rt he re wa s so un re a so na ble a s to c omp e l a

c on tr ary fi nd ing

-- e sp e c ia lly consideringthe use of the Report in tandem with his individualiz ed finding s as to Kane
. 4
Kane ’s ef fort to pre sent evidenc e that would com p el us to come to a c onclusion that he maintains a we ll-founded f ear of perse cution and reve rse the I J ’s deter mination is t o no avail. ToNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 12 - estab li s h a

p r e s e n t w e ll

- f

o u n d e d f e ar o f p e r s e c u ti o n , K an e mu s t s h o w b o th th a t h e h o n e s tl y

f e a rs pe rs e c uti on

sh ou ld h e re tur

n to Ma ur ita nia (a su bje c tiv e c omp on e nt) and

that hi s f e ar i s r e a so na

ble (an objective component) ( Al i , 36 6 F .3 d a t 41 0- 11 ). To me e t th e ob je c tiv e c omp on e nt K ane mus t ( Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 637 ( 6 Cir. 2005)(interna l quotation marks and citation omitted): th
de monst rat[e] th a t pe rs e c uti on is a re a so na ble po ssi bil ity

sh ou ld h e be re tur

ne d to h is c o u n ty o f o r ig in
. T h e a p p li c an t n e e d n o t d e mo n s tr a te th a t h e w il l p r o b a bly be perse cuted if r eturne d beca use one can cer

tainly have a well-founde d fea r of an e vent happeningwhen ther e is less than a 50% chanc e of the occur renc e takingplace
. Kane ’s statement c onforms to the subjective f ear require ment--he say s he beg an to fe ar f or his life in J anuar

y 2000 during his monthl y repor ts to the police. To support the re asonable ness of that fea r, Ka ne lar g ely

points to hi s rec ord of a rrests and beating s, buttressing that evidence by arguing that he re asonably fea rs that he will suffe r re taliation upon his return bec ause of his father ’s and brothe r’s political ac tivity in oppositi on to the Mauritanian g overnme nt in the late e ighties. B ut the re a so na

ble ne ss o f t hat con ti nu ingfe ar i s si mil arl y un de rm ine d b y

the fa c t th a t K ane liv e d in Ma ur ita nia fo r m or e tha

n te n y e ars a ft e r h is f

a mil y ’s a c ts o f p oli tic a l op po sit ion , d ur ingwh ic h ti me Kane was a

ble to obtain signific ant educ ation and employ ment as well as t he fr eedom to depa rt from Mauritanian w ith the appar ent bl essing of t he gover nment. As such, the I J was unpe rsuade d that the
re c or d c re a te d a

fo un datio n f

or a re a so nab le fe ar o f f

utu re pe rs e c uti on

sh ou ld K ane re tur

n to Ma ur ita nia ba se d o n th os e pa st e ve nts
. Kane of co u rs e als o points to t he undenia ble history

of oppre ssion and mistreatment of members of

his ethnic g roup, F ulani, by the Mauritania

n g overnme nt to su gges t t h at hi s mereNo. 05-3898

Kane v. Gonzales

- 13 - membership in that g roup cr eate s a re asonable possibili ty that he will be impri s o n ed , t o rt ured or kil le d if he re tur

ns . But ag ain Kane’s indi vidual history while l iving in Mauritania amidst that period of ethnic oppr essi o n , co u p l ed with t he evide nce of chang ed conditions for F ulani in Mauritania,
rea sonably

rebut a ny infere nce that Kane himself w ould be a tar g et should he re turn.
I n the end, our st andar d of review controls the out come. On the administrative r ecor d befor e us, Kane has not met his burden of demonstrating that any rea sonable fa ctfinder

would be compe lled to c onclude that Kane held a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution should he retur n to Mauritania. Henc e we may

not set aside the I J ’s dec ision (see Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 390).
Conclusion
B e c a us e we fi nd

tha t su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the I J’s d e c isi on that K ane fa ile d to demonstrate a

continuing w ell -f

o u n d ed fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution for asylum purposes, Kane simil arly cannot mee t the more string ent standar d--de monstrating a clea r proba bility of perse cution--to qualify for withholdi ng of deportation (see Al i , 366 F.3d at 411). Thus we D ENY Kane ’s petition for re view.