NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a1267n.06 No. 11-4359 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT BA L L AH MOMOLU PASSEW EE, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE U

NI TED STATES BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEF ORE: BOG GS and McKEA GUE, Circuit Judges; CARR, District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Ba llah Momolu Passewee petitions this court for revie w of an order of the Boa rd of I mmigra tion Appeals af firming the denial of

his applications for asy lum, withholding of

remova l, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for revie w. On J anuar

y 13, 2007, Passewee , a native and citizen of L iberia, enter ed the United States as

a nonimmigra

nt visitor for pleasure with authorization to rema in for a temporar y period. Be fore the expiration of that period, Passewee filed applications for asy lum, withholding of remova l, and CAT protec tion. The Depa

rtment of Homeland Security co mmenced remova l proce eding s ag ainst P as s ewe e by serving him with a notice to appea r, char g ing him with remova bility u n d er t h e The Honora

ble J ames G. Carr, Senior United States District J udg e for the Norther n District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation.No. 11-4359

Passewee v . Holder I mmigra tion and Nationality Act § 237(a) (1)( B) , 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1)( B) , as an alien who rema ined in the United States longe r than permitted. Passewee appea red befor e an immigra tion judge (I J ) and

conce ded that he ha d overstay ed his visitor visa. The I J order ed Passewee ’s remova l in absentia when he failed to appea r for his merits hear ing. The I J subsequently reope ned the case . At the resc heduled hear ing, Passewee testified that he left L iberia be cause his life was thre atene d by J ohn Yeke h, a senior consultant for the L iberian National Police. Acc ording to Passewee , Yeke h soug ht to eliminate him beca use of his past role as

an advocate for the p eo p l e and beca use of his assets, but “the prime rea son is beca use he’s also falling into a rela tionship wit h my wife. . . . Yeke h is mainly targ eting me because he has coerce d my wife to fall into a rela tionship with him.” At the conclusion of Passewee ’s testimony , the I J opined that the asy

lum application was fr ivolous, g iving examples of Passewee ’s inconsistent a nd im p la u s ib le te s ti mo n y a

n d p o in ti ng out the appar ently fra

udulent nature of his support in g d o c u me n ts

. The I J continued the hear ing to g ive Passewee additional time to addre ss these issues. After a second hear ing, the I J denied Passewee ’s applications for relief , order ed his remova l to L iberia, and found that he knowingly filed a frivolous asy l u m ap p l ication. The I J deter mined that Passewee was not

cre dible and that, even i f he wer e credible, he failed to demonstrate that any harm he might suff

er

was rela ted to a statutorily protec ted g round, that he had a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution, or that it was more likely

than not that he would be subje cted to torture if he re turned to L iberia. Passewee filed a timely appea l, which the BI A dismiss ed in part and sustained in part. The BI A upheld the I J ’s adver se-c redibility finding as not clea rly err oneous. The BI A further deter mined that the I J corr ectly

conclude d in the alterna tive that Passewee ’s asy lum claim lacked the require d -2-No. 11-4359

Passewee v . Holder

nexus betwee n any harm in L iberia and a statutorily protec ted g round; that Passewee , having failed to establish elig ibilit y for asy lum, failed to sat i s fy t he more stringe nt standard for withholding of

remova l; and that Passewee ’s specula tion was insufficient to establish a clea r probability of torture. The B I A sustained Passewe e’s a ppeal f rom the I J ’s frivolity

finding

. Passewee now petitions this court for revie w. Where, as here , “the BI A revie ws the immigra tion judge ’s decision and issues a separ ate opini o n , ra t h er than summarily aff irming the immigrat i o n judge ’s decision, we revie w the BI A’s decision as the final ag ency deter mination.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 ( 6th Cir. 2009). “To the e x tent that the BI A has adopted the I J ’s re asoning , howeve r, we also revie w the I J ’s dec ision.” Al-Ghorbani v. Holder , 585 F.3d 980, 991 (6th Cir. 2009). We r eview fac tual finding s, including a n adver se-c redibility

finding , under a substantial-evidenc e standard, upholding the ag ency ’s deter mination “as long as it is supported by

reas o n ab l e, s u bstantial, and probative evidenc e on the rec ord considere d as a whole.” Parlak v. Holder , 578 F.3d 457, 462 (6th Cir. 2009) (interna l quota tion mar ks omitted); see also Abdulahad

v. Holder , 581 F.3d 290, 294 (6th Cir. 2009). “[T] he administrative finding s of fac t are conclusive unless any rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). Passewee contends that the I J ’s adver se-c redibility finding was not based on issues g oing to the hear t of his c laims f

or re lief. B ut Passewee filed his applications for relief afte r the enac tment of the REAL I D Act, Pub. L

. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), which allows an adver se-c redibility deter mination to be made “without reg ard to whether an inconsistency , inacc u r a c y , or falsehood g oes

-3-No. 11-4359

Passewee v . Holder to the hear

t of the applicant’ s claim, or any other rele vant fac tor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(B )(iii); see also El-Moussa v. Holder , 569 F.3d 250, 256 ( 6th Cir. 2009). The I J found t hat P assewe e’s test i m o ny was int erna lly inconsistent as well as i nconsistent with his application and his corr oborating evidenc e. The I J also noted that Passewee often elec ted not to answe r the question asked and that he was instead “intent upon try ing to tell his story in some sort of narr ative form which sug g ests to the Court that he was not being candid.” Passewee attributes the I J ’s finding s to a misunderstanding of his testimony , ref ere ncing the numerous times that the I J expressed difficulty understanding him. The rec ord, howeve r, ref lects that the I J interjec ted when he could not understand Passewee ’s testimony to allow Passewee to repe at or explain his answe rs. Cf. Ahmed v. Gonzales , 398 F.3d 722, 726-27 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that the I J himself cre ated the

co n fusi on and held it ag ainst the petitioners). The testimony cited by Passewee as a “conf used exchang e” in fac t demonstrates his evasive ness; the quotation in his brief omits his repe tition of the question, ref

lecting that he under stood what he wa s being asked. The I J found that two documents submitt ed by Passewee —medical slips from the New Ag e Medical C linic purporting to document his trea tment for injuries sustained from beating s—were fraudulent. Passewee asser ts that he did not know that the documents wer e false, i gn o ri n g t h ei r patent falsity

. See Sterkaj v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 273, 277 (6th Cir. 2006) (“A n applicant must take

rea sonable measure s to verify the authe nticity of any documents acc ompany ing an application.”)

. The medical slips appea r to b e pre- printed forms with Passewee ’s name filled in, contain a misspelling in the letterhe ad, and conflict with Passewee ’s own tes t i mony about his injuries and trea tment. -4-No. 11-4359

Passewee v . Holder Passewee contends that the I J overe stimated his ability to obtain corr oborating documents from post-civil-wa

r L iberia. G iven t hat P assewe e rece ived emails from his brother in L iberia a nd had rec ently o b t ai n ed a photo of his wife, a rea sonable trier of fac t would not be compelled to conclude that a statement from his wi fe was unavailable

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4); Shkabari v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 324, 331 n . 2 (6 t h Cir. 2005). Fur thermore , Passewee ’s testimony was not “other wise cre dible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(B )(ii) (“Where the trier of fac t deter mines that t he applican t s h o uld provide evidenc e that corr oborate s otherwise cre dible testimony , such evidenc e must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidenc e and cannot rea sonably obtain the evidenc e.”)

. Where an ap p licant’s testimony could be viewed as incre dible, inconsistent, or incoher ent, as in this case , the failure to provide corr oborating evidenc e may provide further support for an adver se-c redibility deter mination. See Zhao v. Holder , 569 F.3d 238, 248-49 (6th Cir. 2009); Pilica v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 941, 954 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Given Passewee ’s inconsistencies, his submissi on of patently false documents, and his lack of corr oboration, substantial evidenc e supports the adver se-c redibility finding

. That finding is “fa tal to a ll three of [P assewe e’s] claims for relief .” El Moussa , 569 F.3d at 256. Acc ording ly , we deny the petition for re view.

-5-