Th e Ho no ra ble Da nie l M. Frie dm an, Un ite d St a te s Ci rc uit Judg e fo r t

he F e de ra l Cir c uit , * sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0787n.06 No. 09-4058 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
PI US DANI ELL UL ONGA, P etitioner , v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Ge ne ra l of

the Un ite d St a te s, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION FOR REVI EW OF A N ORDER OF THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS
O P I N I O N

Be for e : M OORE, SU TTON , a nd F RI ED M AN , Ci r c uitJudg e s. * KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Pius Daniel L ulonga (“L ulonga ”) seeks r eview of a final order of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appe als (“B I A”) aff irming without opinion the I mmigra

tion J udg e’s (“I J ”) denial of hi s reque st for withholdi ng of re moval and prote ction under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . I n his petition for review , Lulonga argues that the I J err ed in (1) conc luding that L

ulonga was not c redible; (2) requiring corr oborating evidenc e without g iving Lulonga notice that he must provide suc h evidenc e; and ( 3) fa iling to find that Lulonga had suff ere d from past pe rsec ution. Upon revie w, we conclude that the I J ’s adver se cr edibility deter mination was
su pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e , wh ic h inc lud e d Lulo ng a ’s inc on sis te nt t e sti mony re g ard inghis treatment in jail. L

ulonga did not provide sufficie nt a dditional e vidence independe ntly to supportNo. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

2 his c la im. Th e re fo re , h e did no t e sta bli shtha t it is mor e lik e ly tha

n no t that his lif

e or fr e e do m w ou ld b e t h r e a t e n e d i n T an z an i a o n a c c o u n t o f h i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o ni f h e w e r e r e tu r

n e d t h e r e . A c c o r d i n g l y, Lulo ng a ’s pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w i s DE NI ED
.

I. BACKG ROUND Lulonga is a forty -four

y ear old native and c itiz en of Tanzania, born in Z anzibar on the island of Pe mba . H e is d ivo rc e d a nd ha s n o c hil dr e n. Lul on ga cl aim s th a t he wa s p e rs e c ute d f or his political opinion in Tanz ania a s a re sult of his invol vement with t h e C ivic United Fr ont (“CUF ”),
an o pp os iti on

po lit ic a l pa

rt y . He joi ne d CUF in 199 3, re g ula rl y a tte nd e d part

y me e tin g s, and

be c a me a y outh leader

involved in rec ruiting young people to the pa rty . Lulonga

tes t ified that the police supported the r

uling pa rty , Chama Cha Mapinduzi ( “C CM”), and he submitt ed cor roborating do cum ent ati on regardi ng vi ol ent att acks by CC M agai ns t s up po rt ers of C UF. Lulonga testified that on J une 5, 1999, he w as par t of a me eting for CUF consisting of him se lf and tw e nty -f ive pe op le . T he ne xt day , h e le arn e d th a t th e po lic e were lo ok in g fo r h im be c a us e he ha d h e ld a

n il le g a l me e tin g . O n Jun e 7, 19 99 , h e wa s arr e ste d b y the po lic e and

he ld i n custody for two to thre e months. Lulonga testified that the jail condition s we re “filthy ” and unsanitary and that he wa s “man-ha ndled” while in c ustody . Administrative Record ( “A.R.”) at 110 (Removal Hr ’g Tr. at 21). He later testified that he wa s “pushed” and “be aten” when he complained about the unsanitar

y conditions. A.R. at 135 (Removal Hr’ g Tr. at 46)
. Lulonga was ultimately

char g ed with violently

ass e mb li n g

in v io la ti o n o f the law of Z anzibar. After he wa s relea sed on bond, he was require d to report pe riodically to the police while his ca se wa sNo. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

3 pe nd ing , a

nd did so un til le a vin g Ta

nzania in Augus t 20 00 . H e te sti fi e d th a t if he fa ile d to re po rt , he would be ja iled. He also testified that the char g es are still pending ag ainst him in Tanzania and he wo uld be take n b a c k to pr iso n if he re tur ns . Lulonga asser ts that he continued his political involvement with the CUF af ter his ar rest, and, in Jun e 20 00 , atte nd e d a CU F me e tin g that w a s d isp e rs e d b y the po lic e . D ur ingthe dis pe rsal, Lulonga was beate n and injured by the police, but not arr ested, and soug ht treatment for his injuries fr om a tr a dit ion a l do c tor

rathe r t ha n a ho sp ita l. H e te sti fi e d that he did no t g o to a

ho sp ita l be c a

us e he did not have ne cessa

ry documents and f

ear ed being arr ested. At the he aring , he pre sented injuries from this incident, showing the immigration judg e marking s on the outside of his elbow of his lef t arm whic h he re ceive d when the police wer e pulling him, and a scar on top of his shoulder wher e he wa s hit by

police with a baton. Lulonga lef t Tanzania on August 23, 2000. He cla ims that he and his wife c ame to the Un ite d St a te s so that hi s w if e c ou ld o bta in m e dic a l tr e atme nt h e re fo r a sli pp e d disc . H e ini tia lly testified that she be came ill in August 2000; he later explained that she bec ame ill in May 2000 but
wa s n ot a dv ise d to s eek tr eatme nt i n th e Un ite d St a te s unti l July 20 00 , at w hic h ti me the y bo th obtained U.S. visas for this purpose
. On Au g us t 25 , 2 00 0, Lulo ng a arr ive d in

the Un ite d St a te s at N e wa rk, New Jer se y , a s a nonimmigra

nt visit or for

pleasure with authorization to re main in the United States for a temporar y period not to exceed O ctober 23, 2000. Lulonga

testified that he did not file fo r as y l um when he
arr ived bec ause he had h o p ed the sit uation in Tanzania would “se ttle[ ] down.” A.R. at 121No. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

4 (Removal Hr ’g Tr. at 32). Whil e in the United States, Lulonga has continued to w ork on behalf of the CU F by ra isi ng fu

nd s in supp or

t of the pa rt y and vis ite d w iththe pa

rt y le a de r d ur inghis vis it t o the Un ite d St a te s. Lulonga filed an a pplication for political asy lum on J une 5, 2003. On Dec ember 2, 2003, the De pa rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ity (“ DH S” ) i nit ia te d r e mova l pr oc e e din g s b y fi lin g a No tic e to Appea r (“ NTA” ) which a lleg ed that L ulonga was re movable for

having rema ined in th e United States bey ond October

23, 2000 without authorization, i n viol ation of sec tion 237(a)( 1)(B ) of the I m m i gra t i o nan d

Na t i o n al i t y

Ac t , 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 1 )( B)
. At a D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 h ea ri n g, Lulonga conce ded re movability . At a January 7, 2006 hear ing, Lulonga reque sted relief in the form of a s y lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the CAT. Be cause Lulonga ’s asylum application wa s filed more tha n one y ear afte r hi s arr ival in the Unit ed States, L ulonga conce ded that he is inelig ible for a sy lum. At his removal hear ing on Ma y 17, 2007, Lulonga t est ified bef ore a n immigration judge, thr oug h a Swahili translator, in support of his a pplication for r elief. Af te r L ulo ng a ’s te sti mony , th e imm ig ra tio n ju dg e (“ I J”) e nte re d a n o ra l de c isi on

de nyinga ll relief except for voluntar

y depa rt u re . Be cause Lulonga was de emed inelig ible for a sy lum, the decision addr essed only

his claims for withholdi ng of removal and prote ction under the CAT. The I J found L ulonga to be not cre dible, and stated in support of his finding that Lulonga ’s t estimony was “cle arly evasive ” and “ inconsistent.” A.R. at 42 (Ora l D ecision at 6). The I J also noted the lac k of supporting do cumentation to corroborate L ulonga ’s claims. B eca

use of the la ck of c orrobor ating evidenc e, the I J conclude d that, in order to f ind pe rsec ution, he would have to f ind Lulonga

cre dible,No. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

5 which he did not. The ref

ore, the I J found t hat t here was not sufficie nt evidenc e to support Lulonga ’s claims for r elief, a

nd the I J denied Lulonga ’s claims for withholding of r emoval and pr otection under the CAT. L

ulonga appea led the I J ’s dec ision. On J uly 31, 2009, the B I A af firmed without opinion. Lulo ng a tim e ly fi le d a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w i n th is c ourt
.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Adverse Cre dib ility Dete rm ination Whe n, a s in

thi s c a se , th e B I A s umm ari ly a ff ir ms t he I J with ou t issu ingits ow n o pin ion , th is court re views the I J ’s opinion. Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 282–83 ( 6th Cir. 2005). The decision by

the I J to deny

Lulonga ’s re quest for w ithholding of re moval and prote ctio n u n d er the CAT rested on his c onclusion that Lulonga was not a cr ed i b l e wi t n ess. The te stimony of the
a pp lic ant f or a sy lu m or

wi thh old ingof

re mov a l ma

y be su ff ic ie nt o n it s o wn

to e sta bli shpa st pe rs e c uti on or a we ll- fo un de d fe ar of pe rs e c uti on , but onl y if the tr ie r o f f

a c t f ind s th e te sti mony

to be c re dib le . 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )( B )( ii) ; Pe rk ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 621 ( 6th Cir. 1994) (noting that te sti mony

is s uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli shwe ll- fo un de d fe ar if the te sti mony is “ be lie va ble , c on sis te nt, and suff i ci en t l y detailed to provide a plausible a nd coher ent ac count of the ba sis for his fea r”) (interna l quotation marks omitted). “Credibility

deter minations are c onsidered f indings of f

act a nd are revie wed unde r the substantial evidence standard.” Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 92 4 , 9 2 5 (6 t h Cir. 2004). Under the substantial evidence s t an d ard, “ finding s of fa ct ar e ‘c onclusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .’” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004)No. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

Under the REAL

I D Act of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, an a ltered standa rd of 1 proof for an adver se cre dibilit y finding applies to c ases filed on or afte r May 11, 2005. See 8 U .S. C. § 115 8( b) (1 )( B )( iii ); 8 U .S. C. § 12 29 a (c )( 4) (C ); see Pe rlaska v. Holder , 361 F. App’ x 655, 662 n.7 (6th Cir. 2010). B eca

use L ulonga filed his application for

asylum i n 2 0 0 3 , t h e pre-REAL I D Act standard a

pplies to his case. 6 (q uo tin g 8 U. S.C. § 125 2(b )(4 )(B )) ; see I NS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (re quiring that the evidenc e “ compe l [] ” an a lternate conclusion in order to ove rturn a B I A dec ision); Ou da v . I NS , 324 F.3d 445, 451 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he pe titioner must show that t h e e vidence prese nted was so compelling that no rea sonable fa ctfinder could fa il to find the requisite perse cution or fe ar of perse cution.”). Even so, adve rse c redibility finding s “must be su pported by specific rea sons.” Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926. I n case s such as this one, pre dating the REAL I D Act, an adve rse c redibility finding 1 cannot be based on “an irrele vant inconsistency ” but r ather must be based on “ issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt’s claim.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). “I f discre pancie s cannot be viewed a s attempts by

the applica

nt to enhance his claims of perse cution, they have no be aringon
cre dibilit y .” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). I n support of i ts adver se cr edibility finding , the I J stated that “[f]irst, while the Respondent’s testimony was re latively forthrig ht and responsive on direc t examination, on cross examination by the g ov e rnme nt a

tto rn e y a nd wh e n qu e sti on e d by the Court re g ard inginc on sis te nc ie s o r a dmi ssi on s, the Respondent’s a

nswers be came clea

rly evasive .” A.R. at 42 (O ral De cision at 6). As evidence of e va siv e ne ss, the I J sta te d th a t L ulo ng a “ ha d to be ask ed the same qu e sti on tw o o r t hr e e tim e s” when only

a y es or no answe r wa s require d. Id. Th e I J did n ot c ite e xamp le s o f t he se e xch a ng e s.No. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

7 Se c on d, the I J found

Lulo ng a ’s te sti mony to be inc on sis te nt. Th e I J ide nti fi e d thre e ma in inc on sis te nc ie s in

Lulo ng a ’s te sti mony

in s up po rt

of its fi nd ing : 1) inc on sis te nt d e sc ri pti on s o f h is tr e a t m e n ti nj a i l ; 2 ) i n c o n s i s t e n td a t e s an d o m i s s i o no f

e v i d e n c e w i t h r e s p e c tt o h i s w i f e ’ s i l l n e s s;
an d 3 ) h i s i n a b i l i t y t o t e s t i f

y t o t h e m e an i n g o f

t h e i n i t i a l s o f

h i s p o l i t i c a l p art y. Although se vera l discrepa ncies identified by the immigration judge do not g o to the hear t of Lulonga ’s claim, we cannot c onclude that a ny rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to find that Lulonga

is credible. See P erlaska v. H older , 361 F. App’ x 655, 662–63 (6th Cir. 2010) (c ourt
no t c omp e lle d to fi nd pe tit ion e r c re dib le e ve n tho ug h no t a ll dis c re pan cie s s ub sta nti a l) ; Vasha v. Gonzales , 410 F.3d 863, 870–72 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (some inconsistencie s unsupported by the re cord, bu t ot he r i nc on sis te nc ie s, wh e n take n tog e the r, su pp or te d a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

fi nd ing ); Singh v. As hc ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 402 ( 6th Ci r. 2 005) (“ sever al of the g rounds upon which the I J relied a re somewhat que stionable” but two key inconsistencies supporte d adver se cr ed i b i lity finding ). The most significa

nt disc repa

ncy identified by

the I J is L ulonga ’s inconsistent testimony reg arding tr e a tme nt b y pr iso n of

fi c ia ls fo llo wi ng his June 19 99 arr e st. We c ann ot c on c lud e that any re a so na ble fac tfinder would be compelled to fi n d L u l o ng a cr edible in light of his inconsistent testim ony reg ardinghis treatment in jail. Lulonga ’s conf licting state ments reg ardinghis prison b eating s are inconsistencies that g o to the hear t of his claim and enha

nce his c laim for per secution. Se e Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926. Lulo ng a did no t te sti fy

on dir e c t ex ami natio n to be ingbe a te n w hil e in c us tod y . O n c ro ss
ex am i n at i o n , wh en t h e go v ern m e n tat t o rn ey as k edi f h e w as b ea t en d u ri n g h i s d et en t i o n , Lu l o n gaNo. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

Lulonga notes that it is possible that his phrasingin the hear ing tr anscr ipt is “disjoi nted and 2 ung rammatica l . . . . beca

use the interpre ter was not f ully fluent in E ng lish.” Pet’r Br . at 9–10. To the e xten t th a t th is c an b e c on str ue d a s a du e -p ro c e ss c ha lle ng e to t he tr ans la tio n, his c laim is fore closed be cause he did n o t prese nt a due- proce ss argument in his BI A appe al. This court “conside r[s] waived” claims that have not been r aised an d administratively exhausted below. Ra ma ni v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 78 F .3 d 5 54 , 5 58 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 8 responded, “When I

complained a

bout the smell and the deposit for the relief to be disposed of, I would be pushed a

nd pushed ar ound.” A.R. at 135 (Removal Hr ’g Tr. at 46) . The judg e then a sked,

“ Th e qu e sti on , s ir , w a s w e re y ou be a te n w hil e y ou

we re in j a il?” to wh ic h L

ulo ng a re sp on de d, “ Ye s, they would use their batons and they would beat me.” Id. L a te r, wh e n th e jud g e qu est io ned him ag ain about his time in prison, L ulonga claimed he was beate n seven times bec ause he complained about the unsanitary conditions. There is no mention in his a sy lum a pplication of beingbeate n by t h e p o l i c e w h i l e i nc u s t o dy. These inc onsistencies could be “attempts b y t h e applica nt to enhance his claims of p erse cution.” Sy lla , 3 8 8 F
. 3 d a t 9 2 6
. Lu lo n g a ar gu e s th a t h is f a il u r e e ar li e r to me ntion being “beaten” while in ja il a

nd his inc onsistent ter

minology reg arding his tre atment could be attributed to lang uag e diffic ulties. Howeve r, the prog ression of his testimony instead could be viewed as 2 embellishment, g iving ri s e to a finding that Lulonga is not credible. See Yong Z hang Zhu v. Mukase y , 299 F. App’x 541, 546 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (c oncluding that omissions in application and supportingdocuments support I J ’s finding that petition er “e m b el lished the incidents in order

to support his claim of perse cution”). Thes e i n co n sistencies ar e sig nificantNo. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

9 beca use the c ircumstance s of L ulonga ’s detention and his treatment in prison constitute the cr ux of his claim of past per secution. Lulonga also argues that he “ is entitled to know what weig ht (if any ) the I J g ave [the] phy sical evide nce” he pre sented to support his claim that he was be aten in June 2000 when police fo rc ibl y br ok e up a

CU F me e tin g . Pe t’ r B r. a t 10 . F ir st, wh a te ve r w e ig ht cou ld be g ive n to thi s
e vid e nc e , th e I J pro vid e d “ sp e c if ic re a so ns ” in s up po rt

of its a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

fi ndin g an d it s d ec i s i o n is supported by

substantial evidence
. Se e Sy lla , 3 88 F .3 d at 92 6; s e e a ls o M e rn a c a j v. Holder , 310 F. App’ x 800, 804 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished opinion) (“ [T] here is, of course , no
re qu i re m en tt h at t h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge r ef er t o a l l d o cu m en t s i nt h e r ec o rdwh en re n d er i n g a decision.” ). “[ R ] e-w eig hing the evidenc e is not part of this Court' s role under the substantial-evidenc e standa rd.” Lin v. Holder , 5 6 5 F. 3 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). S ec o n d , al t h o u gh Lulo ng a c ou ld h a ve argue d tha t th e I J viol a te d h is d ue -p ro c e ss r ig hts by

fa ili ngto a dd

re ss t his evidenc e, he did not ra ise this claim to the BIA. See B arry v. Holde r , No. 0 8

- 4 6 9 7 , 2 0 1 0 WL 3292989, at *7 ( 6 t h C i r. Aug. 23, 2010) ( noting that pe titioner could have argued that I J violated due-pr ocess r ights by

not addres s i n g evidenc e, but fa iled to raise the a rg ument). This court “conside r[s] waived” issues that have not b e e n r a is e d a n d a d mi n istratively

exhausted below. Ramani

v . A sh c ro ft , 3 78 F .3 d 5 54 , 5 58 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Al tho ug h w e c on c lud e that L ulo ng a ’s inc on sis te nt t e sti mony a bo ut bein g b eate n in

ja il
cons ti tute s s u

b s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e s u

p p o rti n g th e I J’ s a d v e r s e c r e d ib il it y f in d in g , w e n o te th a t o ther inconsistencies identified by the I J d o not provide such support. In particula r, the I J noted minorNo. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

10 in con si sten c ie s in

Lulo ng a ’s te sti mony

re g ard ingwh e n h is w if e be c a me ill in r e la tio n to his
a pp lic a tio n f

or a vis a a nd hi s ul tim a te de pa

rt ur e fo r t he Un ite d St a te s. Lulo ng a le ft Ta nzania in Aug ust of 2000 and testified that he came to the United States so his wife could be tre ated he re f or
a se ri ou s il lne ss. Whe n th e I J a sk e d wh e the r it wa s h is t e sti mon y tha t hi s w if e be c a me ill in Aug us t of 2000, which is whe n he came to the United States, Lulonga responde d aff

irmatively . When the I J i n qu i re d

wh y h e ha d

o b t ai n eda v i s a i nJ u l y

o f 2 0 0 0 i f h i s wi fe b ec am e s i cki nAu gu s t , Lu l o n ga
e x p l a i n e d t h a th i s w i f

e a c tu a l l y f

e l l i l l i n M ay o f 2 0 0 0 an d w a s t a k e n t o a h o s p i t a l a tt h a tt i m e . In July , th e do c tor s c ou ld n o lo ng e r treat he r a nd a dv ise d th a t sh e be br ou g ht t o th e Un ite d St a te s to
se e k f ur the r t re a tme nt. M i n o r i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i nd a t e s “ w h i c h r e v e a l n o t h i n g a b o u t [ Lu l o n g a ’ s ] f

e ar f o r h i s s a f e t y” do not involve issues that g o to the hear t of the claim and, thus, “would be an inade quate ba sis for an adve rse c redibility

finding .” Yu , 364 F.3d at 704. The e x act date on which L ulonga applied for asylum and the onset o f h i s wife’ s illness are of littl e re levanc e to his claim of per secution. F ur the rm or e , th e mi no r in con sis te nc ie s in his te sti mony

on thi s p oin t do no t e nh anc e his c la ims
. Th e re fo re , th e date of

on se t of Lulo ng a ’s wi fe ’s ill ne ss i s in su ff ic ie nt to su pp ort a

n a dv e rs e
cre dibilit y

deter mination. Th e I J als o n ote d th a t L

ulo ng a did no t pr ov ide any su

pp or tin g do c ume ntatio n to c or ro bo rate his wi fe ’s ill ne ss. L

ulo ng a argue s th a t th e I J shou ld n ot h ave base d “ his ne g a tiv e c re dib ili ty assessment on this lack of corr oboration without putting L ulonga on notice that he should produc e his w ife’s [readily available ] medica l r ecor ds.” Pet’r Br
. at 18. Howeve r, the I J did not rely on theNo. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

11 absenc e of suc h evidenc e. As discussed su pra , o the r sub sta

nti a l evi de nc e su

pp or ts the I J’s a dv e rs e
cre dibilit y

finding . Therefo re, we nee d not decide w hether the I J proper ly

require d such
corr oboration. B. PastP erse cution Given the lim ited evidenc e that Lulonga prese nted i n support of hi s claim for w ithholding of re moval or protec tion under the CAT, L ulonga ’s cr edibility

was c ritica l t o f

in d in g past perse cution
or we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f p e rs e c uti on . “ With ho ldi ngof re mov a l is re qu ir e d if an a lie n can d e mon str a te that ‘his or her life or fre edom would be threatened in the proposed country of re moval on acc ount of ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a particular social g roup, or polit ical opinion.’” Vasha , 41 0 F .3 d at 87 5 ( qu oti ng8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b )) . In o rd e r t o q ua lif y fo r w ith ho ldi ngof

rem ov a l, Lulo ng a “ mus t e sta

bli shtha t th e re is a

c le ar p ro bab ility

that he wi ll b e su

bje c t to pe rs e c uti on

if forc ed to re turn to [Tanz ania].” Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 38 8 F .3 d 94 1, 95 1 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . T o e sta bli sh a cle ar p r o b a

b il it y , Lu lo n g a “ mu s t d e mo n s tr a te th at ‘ it is mo r e li k e ly th an n o t’ th a t h e . . . will be perse cuted upon r eturn.” Liti v. Gonzales , 4 11 F .3 d 6 31 , 6 41 (6 th C ir
. 20 05 ) (q uo tin g 8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b )( 2) ). “ I f a

n a lie n c an e sta

bli shthat he has b e e n s ub je c t to pa st p e rs e c uti on , th e re is a presumption, subject to rebuttal by the Gover

nment, that his ‘ life or fr eedom would be threatened in the future’ i n the country of re moval.” Gj

y zi v . A sh c ro

ft , 386 F.3d 710, 715 (6th Cir. 2004) . To establish elig ibilit y for protection under the Convention Ag ainst Torture, L ulonga must show that “it is more likely

than not that [he] would be torture d if remove d to [ Tanzania].” Liti , 411 F.3d at 641 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2))
.No. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

The I J found that there is “no documentation to support the Respondent’s claim as to the 3 duration of his de tention in 1999" or that “he had in f act been detained at al l ” a n d n o ted discrepa ncies in L

ulonga ’s testimony

regarding the leng th of his detention. A.R. at 44–45 (Or al Dec ision at 8–9). We n o t e t h at Lulonga did submit as cor

roborating e vidence a wa rra nt char g ing him with having “violently assembled contra ry to la w of Z anzibar,” dated J une 6, 1999, a for m from the Tanzanian police char g ing him with the same, dated J une 7, 1999, and a form titled “B ond and B a il B on d a ft e r A rr e st und e r a War ra nt, ” date d Au g us t 2, 19 99 , se tti ng a he ari ng date on the same char g e. A.R. at 267–69. These documents support Lulonga ’s claim that he wa s arr ested, c harg ed, an d p o s s i b l y d et ai n ed
. Ho we v er , Lu l o n ga’ s cl ai m s t h at h i s p o l i t i ca l ac t i v i t y gav e r i s e t o h i s ch ar ge and arr e st, that he wa s d e ta ine d f or tw o to thr e e mon ths , a

nd that he wa s be a te n w hil e de ta ine d a ll d e p e n d u p o nt h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f

h i s t e s t i m o n y. 12 I n order to reve rse the I J ’s denial of relief , there must be other evidence in the rec ord beyond Lulo ng a ’s tes ti mony

tha t w ou ld c omp e l th is c ourt to c on c lud e that L

ulo ng a wo uld be mor e lik e ly tha n n ot t o s uf

fe r p e rs e c uti on

or tor tur e up on his re mov a l to Ta

nzani a . L ulo ng a did no t me e t th is burden. B eca

use the I J conclude d that Lulonga ’s claim of pa st pe rs ec u tion depended upon the
cre dibilit y

of his testimony , and bec ause the I J did not find L ulonga cre dible, the I J deter

mined that Lulonga had “not de monstrated that it is more likely than not that his life or f re ed o m woul d be threatened . . . on acc ount of hi s political opinion wer e he r eturne d to” Tanzania. A .R. at 45 (Ora l Dec ision at 9). The I J rea ched the same c onclusion reg ardingevidenc e of tortur e. 3 We ag ree that the re cord does not c ompel the conc lusion that L ulonga is more likely

than not to s uf fe r p e rs e c uti on

or tor tur e if re tur

ne d to Tan zan ia . L

ulo ng a pr ov ide d d oc ume nta

ry e vid e nc e in the form of U.S. State Depa rtment repor

ts and Amnesty

I nternational reports doc umenting that, at the tim e he de pa

rt e d f ro m T anzani a , me mbe rs of op po sit ion

pa rt ie s w e re targ e te d b y

the g ov e rnme nt. Ho we ve r, he did

no t prove tha

t “ he will be single d out for per secution.” Akhtar v. Gonzale s , 406No. 09-4058

Lulonga v. Holder

13 F.3d 399, 405 ( 6th Cir. 2005). There fore , we c onclude that the evidence is not sufficient to compe l
re ve rs a l. III . C ON CL USI ON T h e d i scre pancie s surrounding his treatment in jail g o to the hear t of Lulonga ’s claim that he fa c e d p e rs e c uti on

fo r his po lit ic a l op ini on . T he re fo re , w e c ann ot c on c lud e that any re a so na ble adjudicator

would be compelled to find L ulonga cre dible or that he ha s established past per secution. See B erri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 395–96 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“[G]iven the num ber of inconsistencies
and the la c k o f c or

ro bo ratin g e vid e nc e . . . , the I J’s c re dib ili ty det erm in a tio n w a s a

re a so na ble
on e .” ); Yu , 364 F.3d at 704 (“A lthough some of the I J ’s g rounds see m weak w hen the discr epanc ies
are v ie w e d

in th e c o n te xt o f

th e s u r r o u n d in g r e c o r d , w e c an n o t s ay th a t a ‘ r e a s o n a b le a d judic ator
w o u l d b e c o mp e l l e d

t o c o n c l u d e t o t h e c o n t r ar

y. ’ ” ( qu o t i n g 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) )
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
we DENY Lulonga ’s petition for re view.