NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 11a0034n.06 No. 09-3825 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

Lam in Kande, P etitioner

v. Er ic H. H old e r , J r ., At to r ne y G e ne r al, Re spo nde nt ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE B O A R D O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

BEFORE: MERRITT, COOK, and WHIT E, Circuit Judges MERRITT, Circuit Ju dge. L amin Kande , a citizen of Sierra L eone, pe titions for r eview of an or der of

the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“the Board” ) deny ing his applications for asy lum

and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l un de r t

he I mmi g ra

tio n a nd Natio na lity Ac t (“ the Ac t” ). We d ism iss his

a sylum c la im f or wa nt o f j ur isd ic tio n, a nd

we de ny his wi thh old ingof

re mov a l c la im. Pe tit ion e r K a nd e is a

nativ e a nd

c iti zen of Sie rr a L e on e , a nd an e thn ic Me nd e . H e c la ims to have e ntere d the United States on September 6, 2000, throug h J FK airport in New Yor k City , using

a f r a u d u le n t p a s s p o rt. O n Ja n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 , K a n d e f

il e d a n a f f ir mati v e a s y lum a

p p lication. The Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

su b s e q u e n tly issued Kande a Notice to Appear on Aug ust 4, 2004, and cha rg ed him with removability as an a lien who was not in possession of a valid unexpired travel document at the time of entry
. At an ini tial hear ing be fore an I mmigration J udg e, Ka nde conc ededNo. 09-3825

Kande v. Holde r

-2- remova bility but, as g rounds for r elief from remova l, r enew ed his a sy lum a pplication, and re quested withholding of r emoval under both the Act and the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “the Convention”) , or , in the a lte rn a tiv e , volu

nta ry de pa rt ur e . Af te r a su bs e qu e nt h e a ri ngon

the me ri ts o f t

he se c la ims , the I mm ig r a ti o n Ju d g e r e je c te d th e m a ll , f

o u n d K a n d e r e mo v a

b le , a n d d e n ie d h is r e qu e s t f

or voluntary depar ture. Ka nde appe aled the de terminations as to his claims of asy lum and withholding of re mov a l un de r t

he Ac t, but no t th e Co nve nti on , to the B oa rd , a nd the B oa rd de nie d h is a

pp e a l. Kande then petitioned to this Court for review

. The subst ance of all of Ka nde’s c laims for re lief fr om removal is that he is an e thnic Mende whose e thnicity

g en e r a ll y a nd whose fa

mily specific ally

was c losely

associate d with the Sierra L eone People’s Party

(“the Party ”), a p o litical party whose a dhere nts have be en the victims of political perse cution in Sierra L eone. He identifies two spec ific incidents supporting his claim of a f ear of pe rse cut io n, bo th oc c ur

ri ngduri nga

tim e of g re a t up he a va l in

Sie rr a L e on e : th e kil lin g of

his brother, a soldier in the Sierra

L eone a rmy , during a battle with a r ebel a rmy seekingthe over

throw of the Sierr a L eone g overnme nt, a nd the kidnapping and murde r of his father, a deter mined supporter

o f t h e P art y, b y t h e s a m e r e b e l g r o u p , w h i c h v e h e m e n t l y o p p o s e d t h e P a rt y. Every aspec t of Kande ’s claims wa s supported only by his own testimo n y , wh ich was

uncorr oborate d by

any other e vidence whatsoeve r. The Immigration J udg e fo u n d , an d the B oard ag ree d, that this testim ony was not cr edible. B oth based this adver se cr edi b i l i t y deter mination primarily on two inconsistencies. I n his asylum application, Kande indi cate d that the re bels killed his brother in Aug ust of 1996, and his fathe r in May 1997. Howeve r, in his testimony , he testified that his brother wa s killed in J une of 1996, a nd his father

in September of 1997. When confrontedNo. 09-3825

Kande v. Holde r

-3- with both inconsistencies, Kande chang ed his testimony , and indicated that the dates in the asylum application we re the corr ect dates. Finding Kande ’s testimony not cre dible on this basis, the I mmigration J udg e extended his skepticism to Kande ’s entirely uncorr oborate d date of entry into the Un ite d St a tes , and reje c te d h is a sylum a pp lic a tio n a s unti me ly . M ov ingthe n to the me ri ts o f h is claims for w ithholding of re moval, the I mmigration J udg e denie d those claims (as well as the a sy lum application, on an a lternative r ationale) , based on a n adver se cr edibility

deter mination. As to t he de nia l of

Kan de’s ap pli c a tio n f

or a sylum , w e a re sim

ply wi tho ut j ur isd ic tio n to revie w t his claim. Absent som e showing of c hang ed or e x traordina ry circ umstances ( not attempted he re ), an a lie n s e e kin g a sylum mus t sh owby

c le a r a nd c on vin cin g ev id ence th a t he fi le d h is application within a y ear

of ente ring the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)( B)

. The I mmigration J udg e wa s not convince d by Kande ’s uncorroborated t estimonial evidenc e that he entered the United States less than a y ear

prior to his application’s filing . We are barr ed by statute from re viewing the determinatio n o f

th e I mm ig r a ti o n Ju d g e in th is r e g a r d

. 8 U

. S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 )

. Wh il e w e h a ve construed that bar only

to apply when the a

ppeal se eks re view of discr etionary or fa ctual questions and not when the appe al conc erns c onstitut ional questions or questions of statutory interpre tation, Huang v. M

ukasey , 523 F.3d 640, 650 ( 6th Cir. 2008), the question of whe n Ka n d e enter ed the country is unquestionably

fac tual. We do, ho we ve r, have jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r K a nd e ’s re qu e st f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. Ka nd e , n e ith e r i n th is C ou rt nor b e fo re the B oa rd , a pp e a ls the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s de nia l of his claim under

the Convention, and so we address only his argument for relief unde r the Ac t. I n order to be entit led t o withholding of remova l under the Act, he is unde r the burde n of demonstrating thatNo. 09-3825

Kande v. Holde r

Ka nd e a lso a rgue s o n a

pp e a l th a t th e I mm igratio n Jud g e imp ro pe rl y ba se d h is a dv e rs e 1 cre dibilit y

deter mination, in part, on what appe ar s t o b e a basic fa ctual er ror c ommitt ed by

the I m m i gra t i o n J u d ge: at t h e ou t s et o f t h e m er i t s h ea ri n g o n Ka n d e’ s cl ai m s , t h e Imm i gra t i o n J u d ge a c c us e d K and e of

re qu e sti ngthr e e c o n t i n

u a nc e s o f t

he he a ri ngwh ile a

Me nd e int e rp re te r w a s so ug ht, and the n, a ft e r o ne wa s f

ina lly loc a te d, se nd ingthat in te rpre te r h ome a nd de c idi ngto p ro c e e d in En g lis h. I n r e nd e ri nghis de c isi on , th e I mmi g ra tio n Jud g e c on sid e re d th e se c on tin ua nc e s g ra nte d to honor Ka nde’s r equest for

an interpr eter

followed by

Kande ’s dec ision to proceed i n E n glish “a min o r f a c t o r ” i n e v a l u a t i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i t y . B u t t h e a dm i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t , i n f a c t , o nly one continuanc e was soug ht on the basis of finding a Me nde interpr eter , and that, at the time of the other two c ontinuances, K ande a ctually soug ht to pr ocee d in E ng lish. Howeve r, bec ause the Boa rd aff irmed the I mmigration J udg e’s a dverse cre dibilit y d etermination “as pre dicated on sig nificant discrepa ncies i n t he re cord” and did not repe at or c onsider the Immigration J udg e’s f actua l error conce rning the number of

continuance s rel a

te d to K ande’ s reque st for an inter prete r, the I mmigration Judg e ’s e rr or

do e s n ot a ff

e c t ou r a na ly sis

. -4- he would, more l ikely

than not, be subjec t to persec ution on the gr ounds of his rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)( A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). We r e vie w a dmi nis tr a tiv e fi nd ing s o f f a c t un de r a

su bs tanti a l- e vid e nc e sta

nd a rd , an d w e wi ll not disturb those finding s unless “any rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (B ). Viewing the administrative rec ord in its entirety , we c annot say that any rea sonable adjudicator would be c ompelled to conclude , on Kande ’s testimony alone, tha t h e w o u ld mo r e li k e ly th a n n o t b e s u b je c t to p e r s e c u ti o n in Si e r r a L e o n e . K a n d e o n appea l argues that the Immigration J udg e and the Bo ar d b as ed the a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination on minor inconsistencies, and, we re the inconsistencies in this case indeed minor, he would have a n 1 argument. Se e Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004) (re jecting I mmigration J u d ge’s adver se cr edibility deter

mination based on inconsistencie s reg ardingparty membership fe es and the date s w he n th e pe tit ion e r w a s a stu de nt) . H ow e ve r, we a g re e wi th the B oa rd that “th e date s in

thi sNo. 09-3825

Kande v. Holde r

-5- case are signific ant particularly since the responde nt based his entire claim on the alleg ed deaths of his father and brothe r an d b as ed h i s en tire time line of eve nts give n during his testimony on the September 1997 date which he later c hang ed to May 1997.” Finally , while Kande on appea l arg ues that the I mmigration J udg e e n g a g e d in speculation and conjec ture in consider ing the lack of co rr oboration conc erningKande ’s ac count of his family ’s tr e a tme nt i n Si e rr a

L e on e a nd

in fi nd ing that Ka

nd e did no t me e t hi s b ur de n o f e sta bli sh inga we llfounded f ear of future prosec ution, we need not r eac h these issues beca use the B oard, in dismissing Ka nd e ’s a pp e a l, b a se d it s d e c isi on e nti re ly on th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination, which we f

ind to be supported by

substantial evidence

. Acc ording ly , the petition for re view is dismissed as to the asy lum claim for wa nt of jur isd ic tio n, a nd

de nie d a s to the wi thh old ingof re mov a l c la im.