2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-9-2004 

# Sy l l a v . Att y Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2598

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Sy l l a v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 602. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/602* Hon. Arthur L. Alarcón, Seni or Judge, United Stat es Court of Appeal s for the

Ninth Circuit, s itting by designation. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

NO. 03-2598

SAMBOU SYL LA, Petitioner

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

On Petiti on for Review of an order of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals

(A29-851-683)

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

May 28, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , F IS HER, an d ALAR CÓN * , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: June 9, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT AL AR CÓ N, Circuit

Judge

.1 In March 2003, the Department of Justi ce transferr ed the functions of t he INS to the new ly crea ted D epa rtme nt o f H om elan d S ecu rity. See Homeland Securit y Act of 2002. Pub.L. No. 107- 296 § 471, 116 Stat . 2135 (2002) . Because Mr. Sylla f iled hi s peti tion for review pri or to 2003, we refer to t he INS, rat

her than to the Department of Homeland Se cu rity. 2 Petitioner Sambou Sy lla, a nati ve of Mali, appe als fr om an order of the Board of Immi gr at io n App eal s ( “BI A”) deny in g hi s appl ic at io n fo r a sy lum und er8 U. S. C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) (3)(A), withholding of removal under

the Conventi on Against Tort ure and Other Crue l, I nhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment, opened for si gnature Dec. 10, 1984, art. 3, S. Tre aty Doc. No. 100- 20 (1988), 14 65 U .N.T.S. 85 (e ntered into fo rce June 2 6, 1987), an d volun tary departure. W e hold that the g overnm ent presented sufficient evide nce of c hange d coun try conditi ons to re but any

presumpti on of a well- founded fear of fut ure pers ecuti on based on past persecu tion. We a lso conclud e that M r. Sylla has not established that it is more likely t han not that he would be subj ect t o tort ure if he retur

ned to Mali. We do not have juri sdict ion to cons ider Mr. Sylla’ s clai m requesting voluntar y depar ture. I Mr. Syl la is a black Tuare g who was raised i n the Tuareg r egion of Mali. He fled M ali in 19 89 to N ig er af ter all eg ed ly b ein g k id na pe d a nd fo rc ed in to a la bo r c am p b y a white Tuareg r ebel band. He entered t he United States fr om Niger on or about May12, 1990, purs uant to a

non-immigrant B-1 vis a. On June 2, 1998, the Immigr ation and Naturali zati on Service ( “INS”) 1 issued a notic e to ap pear to M r. Sylla, charg ing h im w ith3

being removabl e from the Unit ed State s after he had remained in this country longer t han permitted by hi s non-immigr ant vis a. Mr. Syl la appear ed before an I mmigrati on Judge (“I J”) on Sept ember 3, 1998 for removal proc eedings. Mr. Syl la admit ted the alle gations in the notice t o appear and conceded removabi lit

y. At the hear ing, Mr. Sylla a pplied f or asy lum, withholding of removal and r elie f under the Convention Against Torture, and in the alte rnati ve, he requ ested v olun tary depa rture. T he IJ d esign ated M ali as the coun try of rem oval. Proceed ings on M r. Sylla’s application to remain in the U nited States w ere cond ucted on A ugu st 4, 20 00. M r. Sylla testified that he wo rked on h is fam ily’s land in Ga o as a ca me l her der unt il 19 88, w hen vio lenc e br oke out nea rby. In Jan uar y 198 9, a group of white Tuar eg rebel s, i n revolt against the Malian gover

nment, t ook all of

the Syl la family camel s and kidnaped him. The rebel band brought hi m to a settlement locat ed 10 kilomet ers fr om his home in Gao and forced him to care for the camels in the camp. Four months l ater, the Malian ar my rai ded the Tuareg c amp, kil ling bot h black and white Tuaregs . Mr. Sy lla t esti fied that during the attack he was brut ally beaten and stabbed by

members of the Malian army. Mr. Syl la pres ented evi dence from a 1999 medica l exam p erforme d in the U nited States that con firmed tha t his injuries were consistent with knife wounds. Shortly after the attack, M r. Sylla fled from M ali to Niger in 19 89. M r. Sylla’s2 

### 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) provides , in r elevant part, that a

“ 

### refugee ” is define d as: “any person . . . unable or unwilling to return to . . . [his or her] coun

try be cause of persecution or a well-founde d fear of persecut ion on accou

nt of rac e, reli gion, national ity, membership in a parti cular soci al group, o r politic al opini on. . . .” 4 par ents also fled to N iger in 1 992 , his s isters to N iger and Ga bon , and a br oth er to Fra nce . No me mb er o f his fam ily has r etur ned to M ali. In respons e to Mr. Sy lla’ s testimony, the Government offered the Unit ed State s De partm ent of

State C oun try Repo rt on M ali for 1 997 , 1998 , and 1 999 to dem onstra te that c onditi ons in Mali have changed sinc e 1989. The Reports indicated a si gnific ant improvement i n relations bet ween the Malian Government and t he Tuareg ethni c groups since 1989. The 1997 Report noted t hat “[t ]he UNHC R [United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees] succe ssfully comple ted the repatriati on of Malian refugee s displ aced bythe Tuareg r ebell ions of t he earl y 1990’ s.” The IJ found that Mr. Sy lla’ s testimony was not credibl e, and deni ed his petiti on on th at basis . “As sum ing arg uend o that [ M r. Sylla] had been credib le,” the IJ fou nd in the al ternative that Mr. Sy lla was not subject ed to past

persecution on account of any of the groun ds listed in 8 U .S.C. § 110 1(a)(42), 2 and th at he h ad no t dem onstra ted a w ellfou nde d fe ar o f fu ture per sec utio n be cau se c oun try con ditio ns h ave cha nge d in M ali. Hav ing denied Mr. S ylla’s application for asylum, the IJ also den ied relief unde r the more stringent st andards for

withholding of removal and t he Convention Agains t Tortur e. The IJ al so found that

Mr. Syl la was not entitl ed to voluntary departur e.5

Mr. Syl la fi led a t imely notice of appeal of t

he IJ’s decisi on with the BIA. The BIA affirmed the dec isi on of the IJ without opinion pursuant to 8 C. F.R. § 3. 1(a)( 7) (re de sig na ted as 8 C .F .R . § 1 00 3.1 (a )(7 ) (2 00 3) ). W e h av e ju ris di cti on ov er th is t im elyfiled petit ion for rev iew

. II A. Mr. Syl la fi rst c ontends t hat the BIA’s pract ice of affirmance without opinion and use of streamli ning regul ations violat es the fundamental r ules of admi nistrati ve law by failing to pro vide h im w ith a rea sone d exp lanatio n of the ag ency’s f

inal de cision. T his

cou rt rev iew s de nov o pu re q ues tion s of law

. Patel v. Ashcroft , 294 F.3d 465, 467 (3d Cir. 2002 ). This court

recent ly rejec ted a si milar argument in Dia v. Ashcroft , 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc) . In Dia , the petitioner al so chall enged the BIA’s admi nistrati ve pra ctice of a ffir min g th e de cisio ns o f IJ’ s w itho ut o pin ion

. Id. at 234. This court stat ed in Dia that the INA “left all proceduralaspects of the BIA, especially how it hears cases, entir ely to the Attorney

General’s discr etion. ” Id. at 237. This court concluded i n Dia that “ in promulgating the s treaml ining r egulat ions, the Attor ney Generaldid not r

un afoul of the INA.” Id. at 238. A ccordingly, under the law of this circuit, Mr. Sylla’s adm inistr ative cha lleng e is w itho ut m erit. Id. B.6

Mr. Syl la al so contends that t he affir mance of the IJ ’s order

without opinion was an ab use o f discr etion, an d vio lated h is right to d ue pr oces s, by failing to pro vide th is court wit h an explanation of the reasoni ng behind the BIA’s decisi on so that we can condu ct an individua lized and m eaningfu l review of the agenc y’s actions. This court

rev iew s de nov o w heth er th e B IA vio lated a pe tition er’s d ue p roc ess r igh ts. Chong v. Dis tric t Dire ct or , I

NS , 264 F.3d 378, (3d Cir. 2001). Thi s questi on was resolve d in Dia

. In that matter , thi s court

stat ed “[a]l l that

is re quired for

our meaningfulreview is that t he agency –as repr esented by

an opinion of

the BIA or IJ–put

forth a s uffici ently

reasoned opinion. ” Dia , 353 F.3d at 243. In denying Mr. Sy lla’ s appli cati on, the IJ set forth a suffici ently

reasoned opi nion. “ While in many inst ances knowing the BIA’s reasoni ng might prove he lpful to our revi ew, the BIA’s fai lure t o express it does not amount to a consti tuti onal viol ation. ” Id. III M r. Sylla also c hallen ges th e IJ’s d ecision on th e me rits, conte ndin g that h is petition for r eview should be gr anted becaus e substantialevidence does not support the IJ’s find ing tha t his testim ony w as no t credib le. M r. Sylla allege s that he wa s sub ject to past per secuti on in Mali becaus e of his membership in the bl ack Tuareg group. Pet’r Op. Brief at 22. M r. Sylla also c onten ds tha t he fe ars pe rsecu tion if h e is return ed to M ali based on the s everit

y of hi s past pe rsecut ion. We revi ew the BIA’s decis ion that an ali en has not es tabli shed eli gibil ity for asylum to det ermine whether it i s support ed by7

sub stan tial ev iden ce. Xie v. Ashcroft , 359 F.3d 239, 246 (3d Cir. 200 4). Wh ere the BIA has adopted t

he IJ’s reasoni ng without opinion, t his court als o reviews t

he IJ’s decisi on und er th e sa me stan dar d. Tarrawall y v. Ashcroft , 338 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2003). The subs tantial ev idenc e stand ard req uires th is cou rt to gran t a petition only if the evide nce in the r eco rd is s o stro ng t hat it com pels a co ntra ry con clus ion

. Ahmed v. Ashcroft , 341 F.3d 21 4, 216 (3d Cir. 2003 ). Af ter revie win g the re cord , we c onclu de tha t the IJ’s a dver se cred ibility determinations were not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ based his adverse cred ibility de term inati on o n sp ecu latio n, pe rson al be lief, a nd i mp erm issib le inferen ces . For e xam ple, the I J com men ted tha t M r. Sylla’s testim ony that h is fathe r did n ot resist h is kidnappers in the f

ace of their guns “i s not par ticul arly plausible to t

he Court ins ofar as the Court would at lea st expect a father to prot est i n some fashion, not withs tanding [ sic] the fact that t

he kidnapers had guns, the fact that they were taking his son.” “Adverse credib ility determin ations b ased on sp ecula tion or c onjec ture, rath er than on ev idenc e in the rec ord, ar e revers ible. ” Gao v. Ashcroft , 299 F.3 d 26 6, 27 2 (3 d C ir. 20 02)

. In addition, the IJ em phasized in consistencies in M r. Sylla’s testimon y that were mino r and likely base d on misu nder stand ing, as o ppo sed to any gen uine in cons istency in Mr. Sylla’s t estimony. For example, the IJ made much o f the fact that Mr. Syl la first testif ied th at he wo rke d as a ca me l her der and then later spo ke o f his wo rk o n a farm . The IJ commented that “the respondent ’s affi davit r eflect s that his (s ic) s pent most of8

time as a camel herder

which does not comport with him t elling me that he was a farmer.” This court

stat ed in Gao that “ minor incons ist encies and minor admiss ions that reve al nothing about

an asy lum appli cant’s fear for hi s safet y ar e not an adequat e basis for an adverse cr edibil ity

finding. The discre pancies must involve t

he heart of the asylum clai m.” Gao , 299 F. 3d at 272 (internal ci tations omitt ed). Whether Mr. Sylla worked as a camel herder

or a farmer

does not go t o the heart of his clai m of persecut ion at t he hands of white Tuaregs. It is als o plausible that a camel herder would refer to his job site as a camel “farm.” In ei ther ca se, t he IJ’s adverse cr edibil ity finding i s not suppor

ted by substantial e vidence. IV A. Because the I J made findi ngs in the alt ernative, we revi ew those findings for sub stan tial ev iden ce. See Guo v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 1194, (9th Cir . 2004) ( holding t hat where an appell ate court dete rmines t hat an adver se credibili ty finding i s not suppor

ted by substantial e vidence, and the IJ or BIA has made a findi ng in the a lter native as to t

he petiti oner’s eligibilit

y for asylum, the appellate court is notrequ ired to re man d the c ase to the agency , but may

properl y r eview the fact ual fi ndings i n the fi rst instance) . We need not, however, determi ne whether Mr. Sy lla pr esented s ubstant ial e vidence t hat he was subjected to p ast persecution in M ali on accou nt of his ethnic g roup be cause the IJ determi ned that

the Government es tabli shed bya preponderance of the evi dence that9

conditi ons in Mali have changed sinc e Mr. Syl la le ft in 1989. The IJ found that his fear of f utu re p erse cutio n is n o lo nge r rea son able

. See 8 C.F.R. § 208. 13(b)(1) (a showing of past persecu tion gives rise to a rebu ttable presum ption of a w ell-founded fear of fu ture perse cution ); see also Mulanga v. Ashcroft , 349 F.3d 123, 132 (3d Cir. 2003) (“That presumpti on can be rebutted if the INS est ablis hes bya preponderance of the evi dence that the applic ant co uld rea sona bly avoid perse cution by reloca ting to a noth er part o f his or he r cou ntry or that c ond itions in th e app licant’s c oun try have c hang ed so as to m ake h is or her fear n o longer rea sonable.”). The Co untry R epor ts from 199 7, 199 8, and 199 9 ind icate tha t cond itions in M ali have improved fol lowing vari ous peace agr eements i n 1995, inc luding an integration of Tuareg rebelforces i nto the Mali an army. Dr. Smith t esti fied that “[a] s of 1995, t here has be en a tr ea ty [b etw ee n t he Tu ar eg s a nd th e M ali an go ve rn m en t] in pl ac e th at h as lar ge [ly] be en re sp ec ted .” T he IJ’ s d ete rm in ati on th at t he G ov er nm en t h ad es tab lis he d b y a preponderanc e of the evi dence that country conditi ons have changed i n Mali such that Mr. Syl la’s fear of fut

ure pers ecuti on is no l onger reas onable i s support ed by s ubstant ial evidence. The IJ als o correctly noted that because Mr. Syl la fai led to de monstrat e a reasonab le probability of future pe rsecution, he do es not me et the more s tringent standard req uire d fo r w ithh old ing of d epo rtatio n. See Mulanga , 349 F.3d at 132 (“[I] f an ali en fail s to establis h the well -founded fear of persecution required for a gr ant of asylum, he or she will , by

defini tion, have fail ed to est ablis h the cl ear probabi lit y of per secuti on10

stan dar d fo r w ithh old ing of r em ova l”). B. With resp ect to M r. Sylla’s claim under the C onven tion Ag ainst Torture, the IJ fou nd t hat “ bas ed o n th e res pon den t’s tes timo ny an d ev iden ce in the r eco rd . . . respo nden t has n ot sho wn that he is mo re likely than not to b e torture d if he is rem oved to Mali.” “In order to obtain rel ief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture, an applicant must establ ish that it

is more l ikely

than not t

hat he or s he would be tort ured if r emoved to the proposed count

ryof removal. ” Mulanga , 349 F.3 d at 1 32- 33 ( inter nal c itatio ns o mitte d). Bec ause cond itions h ave c hang ed in M ail since 198 9, M r. Sylla has failed to dem onstra te that he is more likely that not to be tortured if he is rem oved to tha t country. The IJ’s determi nation t

hat Mr. Sy lla ha d not est ablis hed eli gibil ity for rel ief under

the Conventi on Ag ains t To rture is su ppo rted by sub stan tial ev iden ce. See Tarrawall y v. Ashcroft , 338 F.3d 180 , 182 ( 3d C ir. 2003 ) (hold ing tha t the IJ’s finding that pe titioner w as no t likely to be tort ured was support ed by s ubstant ial e vidence where petiti oner int roduced no evide nce to supp ort eithe r the fa ct that the gov ernm ent of Sierra Leo ne de tains ind ividua ls re-ente ring the coun try, or the fa ct that the coun try presum es suc h ind ividua ls to be its oppon ents). C. With resp ect to M r. Sylla’s request for voluntary depa rture pursuan t to § 1229 c(b), this court l acks jurisdi ction to consider his cl aim. I n IIRIRA, Congress provided that“[n]o court shallhave juri sdict ion over an a ppeal fr om denial of a r equest for an order of voluntar y depar ture under

subsect ion (b) of this secti on, nor s hall any cour t order a stay of an alien’s rem oval pen ding con sideration of an y claim with respec t to voluntary depa rture.” 8 U.S .C. § 1 229 c(f); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a )(2)( B)(i) (“Notwiths tanding any ot her provi sion of l aw, no court s hall have juri sdict ion to r eview . . . any judgment regard ing the gran ting of relief u nder section . . . 1229 c . . .of this title” ); Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir . 2004) ( holding t hat the court of a

ppeals l acked juri sdict ion to r eview denial s of volunt ary departur e, i ncluding s tatutoryeligibili ty for voluntary departure p ursuant to §§ 1252(a )(2)(B)(i) and 12 29c(f)). For th e f or eg oi ng r ea so ns , w e d en yth e p et itio n f orre vi ew.