The Honor able Rober t J . J onker, U nited States District J udg e for th e W estern D istrict of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 10a0438n.06 No. 09-3475 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

AHAMAD OU CHEB OUN, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., At tor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF A N ORDEROF T HE BOARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

BEF ORE: SUTTON and Mc KEAGU E, Circuit J udg es; J ONKER, District Judge. * McK eague, Circ u i t J u d ge. Ahamadou Che boun petitions thi s court to re view the de nial of his application for asy lum and withholding of r emoval by the I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) a nd the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”)

. For the foll owing rea sons, we DI SMI SS t he petition insofar

a s i t s e e k s r e v i e w o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t C h e b o u n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s y l u m w a s u n t i m e ly

. We DENY the rema inder of the petition. I. Ahamadou Che boun, a male native of Maur itania, filed an application for asylum and withholding of r emoval in April of 2002, having e ntere d this country without valid documentation. The application claimed that Cheboun enter ed the United States via New York J FK ai rp o rt onNo. 09-3475

Cheboun v. Holde r

- 2 - Aug ust 7, 2 001, afte r experienc ing tor ture a nd perse cution at the hands of the Mauritania

n g overnme nt for his involvement in the Union Democ ratic F orce s p o l itical movement. The applica ti o n s tate d th a t Ch e b o u n f e a r e d to rtu

r e a n d d e a th if h e w e r e to r e tu r n to M a u r ita nia. An

a sylum of fi c e r r e fe rr e d Ch e bo un ’s a pp lic a tio n to a n I J af

ter det e rm ini ng that Ch e bo un fa ile d to demonstrate by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that he h ad filed the application within one y ear of entry into this country

. A r em o v al p ro ce ed i n g h ea ri n g wa s h el d b ef o re an I J o n Au gu s t2 8 , 2 0 0 6

. At t h e p ro ce ed i n g, Che bo un so ug ht a sylum , w ith ho ldi ng of re moval, and

pr ote c tio n und e r t

he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture . As part of

the hea ring , Cheboun fi l ed an u p d ated a pplication for a sy lum and included supporting a

rticles and r eports outlining the poor human rig hts recor d in Mauritania. Cheboun testified at the he aring that he lef t Mauritania on June 20, 2001, after participating in an illega l political demonstration a few day s ear lier. Cheboun stated t hat as a result of his participation in the de mon st r a t i o n , h e w a s i m p r i s o n e d f o r t h r e e d a y s . H e a l s o r e c o u n t e d a p e r i o d o f i mp r i s o n m e n tin 19 96 a s a re su lt o f h is p a rt ic ipatio n in a po lit ic a l op po sit ion

mov e me nt. Duri ng thi s im pr iso nme nt, Cheboun claimed tha t he was be aten. In ad d i t i o n, Cheboun stated that he w as ar rested a nd imprisoned in 1998 a

nd was be aten a

nd forc ed to drink salt wate r. Cheboun testified that he enter ed thi s c ou n t r

y o n Ju l y 7 o r 8 , 2 0 0 1 , w i t h t h e a i d o f a s m u g g l e r w h o s u p p l i e d a p a s s p o rt to h im i n

e x c h a n g e fo r $ 1 , 5 0 0

. T h e s m u ggl er s ei z ed t h e p as s p o rt fr o m C h eb o u n af t er h e p as s ed t h ro u gh

c us tom s, a nd

the n to ok

Che bo un to a mos qu e in B ro ok ly

n. Che bo un

e ve ntu a lly

ma de his wa

y to Ohio and wa s residing there at the time of the he aring

.No. 09-3475

Cheboun v. Holde r

- 3 - After hear ing te stimony , the I J issued a wr itten decision deny ing C h eb o u n ’s re quest for asy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the Convention A g ainst Torture a nd order ed Cheboun remove d to Mauritania. The I J first deter mined that Cheboun failed to mee t his burden of demonstrating by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that he e ntere d the United States on Aug ust 7, 2001,

as wa s require d to meet the one y ear filing de adline for

his application for a sy lum. Specifically , the I J noted t hat C heboun failed to produce any trave l documents establishing his date of e ntry , provided vag ue answ ers a

bout the trip, and wa s unable to rec all the airline on w hich he f lew. I n addition, the I J pointed out that Che boun testified that he e ntere d the country in either July

or Aug ust, 2001, but his asy lum application repor ted the date of entry

as Aug ust 7, 2001. Thus, the I J denied Cheboun’ s application for

asy lum as untimely

. As to his application for withholding of r emoval, the I J found that Cheboun wa s not credible. The I J noted mater ial inconsistencies be tween Che boun’s testimony and application for withholding of r e mo v a l r e late d

to h is e xp la

n a ti o n o f h is im p r is o n me n ts , e n tr

y in to th e U n it e d

St a te s , a nd biogr aphica l information about his spouse an d children. I n addition, the I J found that Cheboun’s de me a no r d

ur ingte sti mony un de rm ine d his c re dib ili ty be c a us e Che bo un

la ug he d at in a

pp ro pr ia te tim e s a nd sp ok e rapi dly

wh e n c on fr on te d w ithinc on sis te nc ie s. Ac c or din g to t he I J, the se inc on sis te nc ies w e nt t o th e he a rt of Che bo un ’s pe rs e c uti on

c la im. F ur

the r, Che bo un

fa ile d to provide a dditional corrobor ating documents to support his perse cution claim, which prompted the I J to d e n y h is a

p p li c a ti o n f

o r w it h h o ld in g o f r e mo v a l. T h e I J a ls o d e n ie d p r o te c ti on under the Convention Ag ainst Torture f or the same rea sons stated in the denial of w ithholding of re moval.No. 09-3475

Cheboun v. Holde r

- 4 - Che bo un a pp e a le d the I J’s de c isi on to the B I A. Th e B I A dis mis se d the a pp e a l for the same

rea sons stated in the I J ’s decision. Specifica lly , the BI A found that Cheboun failed to establish that h e f i l e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s yl u m w i t h i n o n e y e a r o f e n t e r i n g t h i s c o u n t r

y . Ina d d i t i o n , t h e B IA upheld the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination due to mater ial inconsistencies be tween Che boun’s testimony and application for withholding of remova l. Cheboun now petitions t h i s co urt to review the B I A’s fina l order. H e alleg es er ror in the adver se cr edibility

deter mination and seeks a

reve rsal of the BIA’s order denying his a pplication for

a sylum a nd wi thh old ing of re mov a l. Che bo un do e s no t c ha lle ng e the B I A’ s de c isi on a s it re la te s to his claim for prote ction under the Convention A g ainst Torture

. Our analy sis is there fore confine d to the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of r emoval. II. We b e g in b y a dd

re ssi ng the de te rm inatio n o f b oth the B I A a nd the I J tha t Ch e bo un

fa ile d to establish timely

filing of his application for a sy lum. An applicant bear s the burden of establishing by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that he f iled his application for asylum within one y ear of ente ring this country . 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)( B) . The a pplication may

still be conside red, notwithstanding the applica

nt’s failure to sat i s fy

the one y ear

filing r equire ment, if the applica nt demonstrates chang ed cir cumstan ce s which mater ially aff ect his elig ibilit y

for a sy lum. Id. at § 1158(a )(2) (D). Whe n th e I J d e te rm ine s that the a pp lic a nt fa ile d to de mon str a te that he fi le d th e a pp lic a tio n w ith in the one y ear

filing pe riod, this court lacks jurisdiction to revie w the dec ision, unless the petitioner raises a constitutional claim or an issue of statutory construction. El-Mous s a v. Holder , 569 F.3d 25 0, 25 4 (6 th Ci r. 2 00 9); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 748 ( 6th Cir. 2006). This courtNo. 09-3475

Cheboun v. Holde r

- 5 - lacks jurisdicti o n t o re v i ew c laims that raise discr etionary or fa ctual questions re g arding the timeliness of a filing

. El -M ou ssa , 569 F.3d at 255. Th e I J in th e pr e se nt c a se fo un d th a t Ch e bo un fa ile d to de mon strat e that he fi le d h is

a pp lic a tio n wi thi n on e y e a r of e ntr y be c a us e Che bo un fa ile d to pr od uc e tr a ve l d ocume nts establishing w hen he e ntere d the country and he pr ovided diffe rent da tes of entry

. This finding w as reinfor ced by

the B I A when it dismiss ed Cheboun’s appea l. I n this court, Cheboun has not alleg ed constitutional error or

err or in statutory

construction. Instead, he challeng e s th e u n timeliness f

inding as it relate s to the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. Be cause Cheboun seeks r eview of fac tual deter minations only , we lac k jurisdiction to consider t h i s p o rt ion of the petition. El -M ou ssa , 569 F.3d at 255. Accor dingly , we dismiss Cheboun’s petition insofar as it seeks review of the denial of h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s yl u m a s u n t i m e l y. III . Che bo un a lso se e ks re vie w o f t

he I J’s a dv e rs e cred ibi lity de te rm inatio n a s it

re la te s to his reque st for withholding of remova l. When the BIA adopts the re asoning of the I J and adds a dditional comment s , “we revie w the I J ’s dec ision directly while also consider ing the Boa rd’s a dditional analy sis.” El -M

ou ssa , 569 F3d. at 255. I n revie wing cre dibilit y deter minations, we apply

the substantial evidence standard, a nd we will over

turn a fa ctual credibility

deter mination only

if the evidenc e to the contra

ry compels a diff

ere nt conclusion. Kaba v. Muk asey , 5 46 F .3 d 7 41 , 7 47 (6 th Cir. 2008). The REAL

I D Act pe rmits imm igr ation judge s to ba se adver se cre dibilit y deter minations on any inconsistency

or inac cura cy , reg ardle ss of wh et her the inconsistency g oes to the hea

rt of theNo. 09-3475

Cheboun v. Holde r

- 6 - a pp lic a nt’ s c la im. 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( iii ); Id. at 749 n.1. Howeve r, t his new standa rd applies only to applications for a sy lum filed after May 11, 2005. Id. Be cause Cheboun’s initial application was filed in 2002, the standard in pla ce prior to the passag e of the REAL I D Act applies to his c ase. I d. Un d er t h i s s t an d ar d , an ad v er s e c re d i b i l i t y d et er m i n at i o n m u s tb e f

o u n d ed o n i n co n s i s t en cies that g o to the heart of t he applicant’s claim, rathe r t han irre levant inconsistencie s. Ndrecaj v. M ukasey , 52 2 F .3 d 6 67 , 6 74 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) . An inc on sis te nc y g oe s to the he a rt of the a pp lic a nt’ s cla im i f i t can be vi ewe d as an attempt to enhanc e the pe rsec ution claims. Id. a t 67 4– 75 . In ma kin g a n a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

deter mination, the I J may

consider all releva

nt fac tors, including a

n applicant’ s demea

nor and the plausibil ity

of his statements. Id. a t 6 7 4

. A n a dv e r s e c r e d ib il it y d e te r mi n a ti on must be supported by

specific rea sons. Kaba , 546 F.3d at 749. Th e I J in th is c a se lis te d f

ive sp e c if ic inc on sis te nc ie s b e tw e e n Ch e bo un ’s te sti mony a nd his application for

withholding of r emoval. The BIA re counte d t h es e i nconsistencies in its dismiss al of Cheboun’s a

ppeal. Cheboun a

rg ues that the va

rianc es betwe en his testimony and application are not inconsistencies and tha t they do not g o to the hear

t of his persec ution claim. We first note that

so me of the inc on sis te nc ie s li ste d b y the I J invo lve Che bo un ’s fa ilure to pr ov ide su ff ic ie nt de ta il i n his application for withholdi ng of removal. This court has specific ally stated that “the mere failure of a pe titioner to include eve ry detail . . . in th e ap p l i ca t ion [ ] shoul d not be consider ed fatal to a petitioner’s re quest for r elief.” Kaba , 546 F.3d at 749. Ho we ver, the I J also noted that Cheboun g ave varying acc ounts of t he duration of his imprisonments. I n addition, the I J found that Cheboun’s testi m o n y ab out his arrival to the United States wa s inconsistent with the ex planation that he provided to the Asy

lum Office . These inc onsistencies go to the hea rt of Cheboun’s pe rsec utionNo. 09-3475

Cheboun v. Holde r

- 7 - claim and a

re suppor ted by substantial evidence

. See Ndrec aj , 522 F.3d at 674–75 (stating that an inconsistency

g oes to the hea

rt of an a pplicant’s cla im if it can be viewed as e nhancingthe claim). The I J also found Cheboun incr edible base d on his demeanor whil e t es t i fy i ng . Cheboun

a rgue s th a t th e I J impr op e rl y re lie d o n s pe c ulatio n a

nd pe rs on a l be lie fs in b a sin g th e a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

deter mination on his demea

nor. He cites our dec ision in Alexandrov v. Gonzales , 442 F.3d 395 ( 6th Cir. 2006), t o s u p p o rt h i s argument. I n Alexandrov , this court deter mined that an adver se cr edibility

deter mination was not supported by substantial evidence beca use the d e te r mi n a ti o n w a s b a s e d o n th e im mi g r a ti o n c o u rt’ s p e r s o n a l b e li e f a b o u t h o w lo n g b e a ting s and detentions should last. Id. at 408–09. The I J ’s demeanor determination in this case was not based

o n p er s o n al belief

as wa s the ca se in Alexandrov

. In s te a d , th e I J in th is c a s e n o te d th a t Che boun appea red “ nervous” and “use d faster speec h patterns whe n confr onted with inconsistencies.” An adver se c r e d ib il it

y d e te r mi n a ti o n c a n b e p r e mi s e d o n th e a p p li c a n t’ s d e me a n o r , a n d w e w il l not lig htl y dis c a rd thi s d e te rm inatio n g ive n th e I J ’s un iqu e op po rt un ity to o bs e rv e the a

pp lic a nt. Abdulahad v. Holder , 5 81 F .3 d 2 90 , 2 94 –9 5 ( 6th Cir. 20 09 ). Ac c or din g ly , w e fi nd no re a so n to disturb the I J ’s determination on Cheboun’s deme anor, a nd we ther efor e deny

Cheboun’s petition insofar a s it seeks revie w of the a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination. IV. For the fore g oing rea sons, w e DI SMI SS Cheboun’s pe tition t o the extent that it s eeks r eview of the I J ’s determination on the t imeliness of his application for a sy lum. W e DEN Y the re mainder of the pe tition.