The Honora ble Alg enon L

. Marbley , United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. Th e e ns uin g fa c ts a

re dr awn fr om S y ’s a

pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , te sti mony , a nd br ie fs

. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0485n.06 No. 08-3928 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT AMADOUSY, P etitioner ,
v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., A T T O R N E Y G E N E RA L, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON REVI EW FROM THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

O P I N I O N

Before: M CK

EAGU E AND WHITE, Circuit Jud ges; and MARBLEY, District Judge * WHITE , Circuit Judge. Petitioner Amadou Sy reque sts that the court re view the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ ( BIA) fina l decision deny ing a sy lum and withholding of r emoval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (I NA) a nd relief under the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture ( United Nations CAT). We DENY Sy ’s petition for re view. I. BACKG ROUND A. Al le ga ti ons Re ga r ding Eve nt s in M aur it ani a 1Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

I t is not clear if t h e p o l i ce first visited the ga s station on April 1 or April 19. ( Com pa re 2 Supp. App. at 139, with Supp. App. at 165.) Acc ording to Sy , the officers were Whit e Moors. Mauritania has a history of ethnic te nsions 3 b e t w e e ni t s b l a c k

( A f r o - M a u r i t an i an ) an d

W h i t e an d

B l a c k M o o r ( A r a b

- B e r b e r ) p o p u l a t i o n s . In 1989, a border dis pute wit h Seneg al l ed to widespre ad ethnic violence in Mauritania. A t this t ime, Whit e Mo or

a uth or iti e s e xpe lle d th ou sand s o f B la c k M a ur ita nia ns to S e ne g a l. I n rec ent y ear s, the political landscape of Mauritania has been in a state of flux

. A bloodless coup in 200 5 upe nd e d the le a din g pa rt y ’s po lit ic a l con tr ol. De moc ratic e le c tio ns in 200 6- 07 re su lte d in a ne w g ov e rnme nt a

nd po te nti a l r e fo rm s o n th e human r ig hts fr on t, b ut a no the r m ili tary

c ou p th is p a s t Au g u s t l e f

t t h in g s u n c e rta in

. T h e G e n e r a l w h o le d the coup, Moh a me d O u ld A b d e l A zi z, rec ently resig ned in orde r to run for President in the upcoming J uly 18 elec tion. T h e l o c a t i o nan d

t i m i n g o f

t h i s m i s t r e a t m e n tw a s o n e o f t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s w h i c h t h e IJ 4 cited to support his adver se cr edibility deter mination. Se e inf

ra S e c t i o nII. 2 Sy , a man of Fulani ethni ci t y , wa s born on November 2, 1960, in Mauritania. Be fore the g ov e rnme nt f

or c ibl y de po rt e d h im t o Se ne g a l, S y wo rk e d a nd li ved at a B P- ow ne d g a s st a tio n in Kiffa , Mauritania, w hile the re st of his family , including his wife , lived in Bog he, Maur itania. I n April 1989, Mauritanian police office rs acc used Sy of being a member o f t h e p o l i t i cal

2 g ro up F L AM (A fr ic an L ibe ratio n F or c e s o f M a ur ita nia ) a nd us ingmon e y

fr om h is g a s st a tio n to

su pp or t F L AM

. De sp ite Sy ’s de nia ls, the of fi c e rs tol d h im that he mus t leave the c ountr y . On A pr il 3 19, howeve r, the police arr ested a man from Sene g al at the g as stati on, told Sy he could not leave Ki ff a , a nd or de re d h im t o o nly

g ive g a s to of

fi c ia l me mbe rs of

the g ov e rnment
. Acco rd ingto h is oral testim ony , during this visit the pol ice officer s knocked Sy to the floor, tied him up, stepped on his hand, burned him with cig are ttes, and beat him with sticks for two hours. The off icer s then took 4Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

Ac c or din g to t

he a sylum

of fi c e r’ s A sse ssm e nt t o Re fe r, the of fi c e rs a lso ins truct ed Sy

to 5 visit the pol ice station eac h day

. When questioned about this on cross-e x amination, Sy said it was true but “w hen they

trusted me they

stop asking me to report e veryday .” (Supp. App. at 173.) Sy ’s de sc ri pti on

of his tr e a tme nt in pr iso n w a s o ne of the inc on sis te nc ie s th a t th e I J cit e d to 6 support his adverse cre dibilit y deter mination. See infra S e c t i o nII. Se e su pra note 3. 7 3 Sy to t he po lic e statio n, wh e re the y de ta ine d him fo r fo ur ho ur s. Up on his re le a se , the of fi c e rs tol d S y h e c o u l d

n o tl e a v e t h e c o u n t r

y. 5 Two months later police visited Sy and told him he could leave the country . Two day s after that, the police r eturne d to the g as station at appr ox imately 5:00 pm and ag ain took Sy to the police station, w here office rs interrog ated him f or two day s. During these interr og ations the police a ccuse d Sy of beinga member of FLAM. The office rs then moved Sy to the Nouakc hott pr ison, where he

rema ined for one month. During this time he share d a ce ll with ten other prisoners a nd rec eived ve ry littl e food. A ccor ding to Sy ’s ora l and written testimony , soldiers beat him and other prisoners, a

nd wh e n o the r p ri so ne rs die d th e ir bo die s r e ma ine d in

the c e ll w ithsurv ivo rs . 6 When the authorities re lease d Sy in J uly 1989, soldiers took him to t he Seneg al River, for ced him to si g n a conf

ession, and plac ed him on a boat to Ro s s o, on the Seneg al side of the bor der. When Sy rea ched Rosso, the R ed C ross provided him with medical a ssistance a nd food. In Rosso, Sy also g ot to know a driver for B P, who put Sy

in touc h with his former e mploy er. B P then pr ov ide d Sy

wi th a do c ume nt c onfi rm in g his fo rm e r e mpl oy me nt. Th e do c ume nt a llo we d Sy to trave l to Dakar , wher e he c ollected ba ckpay from B P, found his family , and learned that his mot her ha d d ie d d

ur ingthe ma ss d e po rt a tio n o f B la c k M a ur ita nia ns . 7Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

Ac c or din g to S y ’s or a l te sti mony the do c ume nt w a s, 8 . . . just a cer

tificate to show that you live in the neig hborhood whe re you live and the chief o f t h e neighbor

hood knows y ou. Any body who g oes to live in the neig hborhood wi l l go to the chief of the ne ighbor

hood and inform them that – a nd g ive t hem y our address and they will g ive y ou a paper showing that y ou live in the neig hborhood. (Supp. App. at 156.) Sy ’s kn ow le dg e of

the ma n’ s n a me wa s o ne of

the in con si st e nc ie s w hic h th e I J cit e d to 9 support his adverse cre dibilit y deter mination. Se e inf

ra no te 13 and

a c c omp anyingte xt. 4 I n D a ka r, Sy re c e ive d a

c e rt if ic a te tha t ve ri fi e d h is re sid e nc y , tho ug h Sy po int s ou t th a t it did not offer any benef

its in terms of citiz enship, perma nent re sidency , perma

nent re settlement, or the rig ht t o l egally

obtain employ

ment. Despite c oncer

ns about his safety

and fe ars that he might be 8 d e p o rt e d b a c k t o M a u r i t an i a , S y r e m a i n e d

i nS e n e g a l f

o r n i n e ye ar s . A c c o r d i n g t o S y’ s t e s t i m o n y, he g rew more c oncer

ned in 1997, when the chief of police, who blamed Sy for a fig ht at the school wh e re he ta

ug ht, thr e a te ne d to de po rt Sy to M a ur ita nia . A ft e r t

his e ve nt, the Se ne g a le se po lic e a lso beg an har assing Sy and asking him to come to the police station. As a result, in 1998 Sy made plans to g o to the Un ite d St a te s. I n o rd e r t o tr a ve l to the Un ite d St a te s, Sy c on ta c te d a

Se nato r i n th e Se ne g a le se Con g re ss wh os e c hil dr e n atte nd e d th e sc ho ol wh e re Sy ta ug ht the Ko ra

n. Th e Se nator

pu t Sy in t ou c h w ith

a man na me d Pa p e D io p , w h o p r o v id e d Sy w it h a p a s s p o rt an d tr a v e le d w it h h im to the United States. Sy

arr ived in the United States on Jul y 15, 1998. 9 B. Im m igration P roce edingsSy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

Sy ’s brief appea rs to claim that he f

iled his init ial application on A u gu s t 1 6 , 1 9 98 and 10 Aug ust 16, 1999. ( Compare Pet’r’s B r. at 9, with Pet’r’s Br

. at 27.) The copy of the fir st application in the appendix contains no clea r date . (Pet’r’ s App. at 58-65.) Since the g overnme nt allows that Sy filed his a

pplication in Ma

y 1999 – which is w ithin one y ear of Sy ’s alleg ed ar

rival in the United States on J uly 15, 1998 – this c ourt adopts May 1999 as the date of the first application. ( Se e als o Supp. App. a

t 96 (I J ’s decision indicating that Sy filed his first asylum application on May 3, 1999).) Se e inf ra note 16. 5 I n May 1999, Sy filed an a p p l i cation for

asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction

un de r t he Un ite d Na tio ns CA T. An a sylum of fi c e r int e rv ie we d Sy and

re fe rr e d h is a

pp lic a tio n to 10 the imm ig ra

tio n c ourt . O n Au g us t 9, 19 99 , th e I mmi g ra tio n a nd Natur a lizatio n Se rv ic e se rv e d Sy with a Notice to Appear

in removal proc eeding s, char g ing r emovability under § 237( a)( 1)(A) of the I NA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1) (A) ( “Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was wi thi n o ne or mo re of th e c la sse s o f a lie ns ina dmi ssi ble by the law e xistin g a t su c h ti me is deporta ble.”) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (7)( A)(i) (I ) (identify ing a n alien without a valid unexpired visa or entry document as in a

class of a liens ineligible f or admission). At a F ebrua

ry 24, 2000 hear ing, Sy

admitted the alleg ations contained in the g overnme nt’s Notice to Appe ar a

nd conce ded re movability . On Au gu s t 2 6 , 2000, Sy filed a se cond application for a sy lum. Following a

November

14, 2006 individual merits hear ing, the I J denied all claims for

re lie f a nd or de re d Sy re mov e d to Ma ur ita nia . A s a n in iti a l matte r, he he ld t

hat Sy la c ke d c re dib ili ty due to n u m erous inconsistencies betwe en his written and or al testimony . The I J also relied on inconsistencies, ra ised by the g overnme nt on cross-e x am i n ati on, betwee n Sy ’s testimony and the asylum of fice r’s Assessment to Re fer , and ref ere nced a fore nsic repor

t which fa iled to verify

Sy ’sSy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

6 Ma ur ita nia n n a tio na lity

c ard . F ina lly , th e I J cited Sy ’s fa ilure to p ro vid e re a so na bly a va ila ble

corr oborative e vidence

. The I J also held that S y d i d n o t meet his burden of showing past perse cution. I n the

a lte rn a tiv e , he c on c lud e d tha t Sy wa s fir mly re se ttl e d in Sene g a l. Th ou g h Se ne g a l di d n ot o ff e r S y perma nent re sident status or citize n s h i p , the I J held that “in the view of the Court, the re spondent did have ‘ some other ty

pe of pe rmane nt resettlement.’ ” (Supp. App. 97.) H e also h el d t h at the g ov e rnme nt m e t it s b ur de n o f s ho wi ng , by a prep onde ra nc e of the e vid e nc e , th a t th e re wa s a fundame ntal chang e in country conditions in Mauritania. Be cause Sy

failed to m ee t h i s b u rd en of showingelig ibilit y for a sy lum, the I J held that he failed to mee t the highe r burde n for withholdi ng of re moval. Finally , the I J conclude d that Sy failed to establish eligibility

for pr otection under

the United Nations CAT. Sy filed a timely

Notice of Appea l with the BIA on Dec ember 8, 2006. On J une 30, 2008, the B I A af

firmed the I J ’s dec ision. The BIA’s opinion e x plained that “[a]though the re cord doe s not demonstrate that the Seneg alese g overnme nt made an of fer of per manent re sident status or citizenship t o the re spondent, he did re ceive ‘some other ty pe of permane nt resettlement.’ ” (A pp.

a t2

. ) T h e B IA a l s o u

p h e l d t h e IJ ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , c o n c l u d i n g t h a tt h e IJ

“ pr ov ide d s pe c if

ic , c og e nt r e a so ns re la te d to the he art of the c laim i n s up po rt

of an a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

finding .” (

Id. ) Specific ally , the B oard noted Sy ’s conflicting testimony reg arding : 1) the man who traveled with him to the United Sta t es ; an d 2 ) h i s abuse at the hands of Ma uritanian authorities. Fur

ther, due to t h es e inconsistencies, the B I A held that “it wa s proper for the I mmigration J udg e to re quire c orrobor ating evidenc e.” ( Id. at 3.)Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

7 Sy petitioned for r eview by

this court on J uly

30, 2008. II. AN AL YSI S Th is c ourt ha s juri sd ic tio n to re vie w a fi na l or de r of re mov a l by

the B I A p ur su ant t o 8 U. S.C. § 1252. I n this case, the B I A issued an opinion when it af firmed the I J ’s decision, basing its order on the I J ’s fa ctual finding s. Section 1252 provides appe llate cour ts with “jurisdiction to review the BIA’s dec ision affirming the I J ’s denial of asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re l i ef u nder the Convention Ag ainst Torture.” Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 400- 01 (6th Cir. 2005). Howe ver, when a BIA opi n i o n ad o p t s the I J ’s re asoning , this court has also re viewed por tions of the I J ’s decision direc tly

. Id. I nre m o v al p ro ce ed i n gs , t h i s co u rt re v i ew s l ega l co n cl u s i o n s d e n o v o an d “f ac tu al fi n d i n gs under the substantial evidence standard.” Ndrecaj v. M ukasey , 522 F.3d 667, 672 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (f a c tua l f ind ing s) ; Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 527 (6th Cir. 2006) (leg al conc lusions). Under the substantial evidenc e standa rd, “findings of fac t are ‘conc lusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compe lled to conclude to the c ontrary .’” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004) (quotin g 8 U. S .C. 1252(b)(4) (B )). This mea ns that “the pe titioner must show that the evidence prese nted was so compelling that no rea sonable fa ctfinder could fa il to find the requisite perse cution

o r fe ar of per secution.” Ou da v . I NS , 3 24 F .3 d 4 45 , 4 51 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; s e e a ls o A lm uhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 749 (6th Cir. 2006) (“ To reve rse the B I A’s dete rmination we must find that the evidence ‘not only

supports a contra

ry conclusion but indeed c om pe ls i t
. ’” (q u o t i n g Yu , 364 F.3d at 702)). A n I J ’s cre dibilit y deter mination is a factua l finding subjec t to the substantial evidence standard. Yu , 364 F.3d at 703 (“Cre dibilit y deter minations are f

indings of f

act . . . .” ).Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

8 Under the I

NA, “the Attorney Gene ral may g rant a sy lum to an alien” if “ the Attorney Gene ral deter mines that such alien is a r efug ee w ithin the meaning of sec tion 1101( a)( 42)(A) of this titl e.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b) (1)( A). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101, a refug ee is a ny person outside of his or he r

c ountr y of natio na lity “ wh o is un a

ble or un wi lli ngto r e tur

n to , a nd is una ble or un wi lli ngto a

va il himself or her self of the protec tion of, that country beca use of pe rsec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of perse cution on acc ount of ra ce , re l i gion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” The a pplicant bea

rs the burde n of establishing ref ug ee status. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (i). The a p p li c an t m ay

b e a b le to me e t t

h is b u r d e nthr o u g h h is o r h e r o w nte s ti mo n y , w it

h o ut

c or ro borat ion, “ bu t on ly

if the a pp lic ant s a tis fi e s th e tr ie r o f f a c t th a t th e a

pp lic ant’ s te sti mony

is

c re dib le , is pe rs ua siv e , a

nd re fe rs to sp eci fi c fac ts s uf fi c ie nt t o d e mon str a te that th e a pp lic ant i s a

re fu g e e .” 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( ii) ; s e e a ls o id. § 1158(b)( 1)(A) , (d) ( mandating that the Attorney Gene ral e stablish procedur es for the consider ation of asy

lum applications). To make su c h a

sh ow ing , a

n a pp lic ant f or a sylum c an e sta bli shthat he or

sh e su ff e re d p a st pe rs e c uti on

in t he a pp lic ant’ s c ountr

y of natio na lity on a c c ount o f o ne of the a fo re me nti on e d f

a c tor s,

cre ating a pre sumption t hat the applica nt has “a well-founde d fea

r of persec ution on the basis of the

or ig ina l c la im. ” 8 C. F .R. §1 20 8. 13 (b )( 1) ; see also Namo v . Gonzales , 401 F.3d 453, 456 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“ The a lien bear s the burden of showing a ‘ clea r proba bility ’ of suc h perse cution.”). H oweve r, an asy lum officer

or I J may find the presumption insufficient if he or she finds, by a pre pondera

nce of the e vidence , that “[t] here has bee n a funda mental chang e in circ umstances such that the applica nt no longe r has a

well-founde d fea

r of perse cution” or “[t] he applicant could avoid future perse cutionSy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

9 by reloc ating to another pa rt of the a

pplicant’s countr

y of nationality

. . . and under all the circ umstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. §1208.13(b) (1)( i). An a pp lic ant c an e sta

bli sha we ll- fo un de d f

e ar of persec uti on

in t he a bs e nc e of pa st perse cution if: 1) the a

pplicant fe ars pe rsec ution in his or her country of nationality

based on one of the a fore mentioned fa ctors; 2) ther e is a reasonable possibili ty that the applicant would suffe r such perse cution; and 3) the applicant i s “unable or unwil ling to return to, or avail himself or herself of the protec tion of, that country beca use of suc h fea

r.” Id. § 1208.13(b)( 2). An alien can also reque st withholding of remova l under 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Ac cording to that sub-section, the Attorne y Gene ral may not r emove an alien to a country if he finds that “ the alien’s life or fre edom would be threatened in that c ountry beca use of the alien’s rac e, re l i gion, nationality , membership in a particular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (A). I n withholding of remova l pr ocee dings, an alien rec eives a presumption of future perse cution if he or she e stablishes past perse cution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(i). I f, however, the a pplicant ca

nnot establish past perse cution, the Attorney Gene ral must only wi t h h o l d remova l if the applica nt establishes “that it is more likely t h an n o t t h at he or she would suffe r such ha rm.” Id. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(iii) (e mphasis added)

. L astly , an alien c an re quest protec tion unde r the United Nations CAT , thoug h ag ain, “[t] he burd e n o f p ro of

is o n th e a

pp lic ant .
. . to e sta

bli shthat it is mor e lik e ly tha n no t that he or

sh e wo uld be tor tur e d if re mov e d to the pr op os e d co un tr y of re mov a l.” 8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (c )( 2) ; see also id. § 1 20 8. 18 (a ) ( de fi nin g tor tur e)). Not abl y , th e “ mor e lik e ly tha n n ot” sta

nd ard – u til ize d in withholding of r emoval and CAT pr o ce ed i n gs – is highe r than the “ rea sonable possibility ” ofSy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

The REAL

I D Act of 2005 (Pub. L 109-13, 119 Stat. 231) amende d 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b) (1) 11 to allow the trier of

fac t to make a c redibility deter mination “wi t h o u t reg ard to whe ther a n inconsistency , inacc urac y , or fa lsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a

pplicant’s cla im.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( iii ). Th is upd a te d stand ard , how e ve r, “ on ly a pp lie s to alie ns wh o ap pli e d f or a sylum , withholding of r emoval, or other relief on or afte r May 11, 2005, the ef

fec tive date of

this divi sion of the Ac t.” Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 921, 925 n.4 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Sy filed his first application for a sy lum and withholding of r emoval in May 1999. See supra note 10. 10 perse cution standard applied in the asy lum context

. See, e .g. , Bah v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 637, 643 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; compare 8 C.F.R. § 1208. 1 3 (e stablishing asy lum eligibility), with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (withholding of

remova l under the I

NA and CAT)

. When an I J decide s an applica nt’s testimony

“lac ks cre dibilit y , the I J must include in his or her decision ‘spec ific re asons’ e x plaining w hy the I J rea ched suc h a conc lusion.” Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 402 ( 6th Cir. 2005). These reasons, in turn, must relate to “issues that g o to the hear t of the a pplicant’s cla im.” Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926. Furthe rmore, “[ i ] f d i s cr epanc ies ‘ca nnot be 11 viewed a s attempts by

the applica

nt to enhance his claims of perse cution, they have no be aringon

cre dibilit y .’” Da ne

sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 5 F. 3 d

6 1 5 , 6 2 3 n . 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Sh ah v . I NS , 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 ( 9th Cir.2000)). I n his oral dec ision, the I J conclude d that Sy was not cr edible bec ause of incons i s t en cies betwee n Sy ’s written a sy lum application and his oral testimony reg arding , among other thing s: 1) the na m e – or lack of knowle dg e ther eof – of the man who pr ovided Sy with a fa lse passport and tr a ve le d to the Un ite d State s wi th him ; 2) wh e the r, duri ngthe we e k in wh ic h th e po lic e of

fi c e rs fi rs t visited his gas station, Sy was try ing to locate his family

who he he ard ha d been de ported; 3) whe n p o lice off

icer s burned Sy

with cig are ttes; 4) Sy ’s mistreatment at the pr ison in Nouakchott; 4)Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

Despite a ppare ntly ag ree ing w ith other rationale s provided by the I J , the B I A opinion relied 12 on the thr e e a fo re me nti on e d in c on sis te nc ie s ( in a dd iti on to t he la c k o f c or

ro bo ra tin g ev ide nc e ) i n aff irming the I J ’s cr edibility deter mination. (Pet’r’s App. at 3 (“F or these r easons, a lthough we have no t me nti on e d a ll o f t

he re a so ns in s up po rt

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

fi nd ing , w e fi nd

no re ve rs ibl e err or in the finding .”).) There fore , while many of the I J ’s inconsistencies a re irr eleva nt beca use they do not “g o to the heart of t he applicant’s claim,” this opinion focuse s on those which the B I A cited in upholding the I J ’s opinion. Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926. 11 whether Sy has any sisters; 5) and whether Sy knows how his mother died. (Supp. App. at 87-91.) The I J also noted that the a sy lum officer assig ned to the ca se cr eate d a wr itten assessment that

c on ta ine d a dd iti on a l in fo rm a tio n w hic h Sy fa ile d to me nti on

on dir e c t e xami natio n. Gi ve n th e se inc on sis te nc ie s and

c on c e rn s, the I J als o c on sid e re d Sy ’s fa ilure to p re se nt r e a so na bly a va ila ble

corr oborative e vidence , namely his lack of “af

fidavits or l etters or other statement of cor roboration or support fr om his mot her or his sist ers or

his son.” (

Id. at 95.) Th e B I A o pin ion

fo c us e d o n thre e of

the a fo re me nti on e d in c on sis te nc ie s: 1 ) w he the r S y knew the na

me of the ma

n who trave led with him to the Unit ed States; 2) whe n and how the police mistreated Sy in 1989; 3) and whether Sy knew how his mother di ed. The B I A held that “in lig ht

o f t h es e d i s cr ep an ci es an d t h e l ac k o f ad eq u at e ex p l an at i o n , i twa s p ro p er fo r t h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge to require corr oborating evidenc e.” (Pet’r’ s App. at 3.) 12 I n this c ase, sever al of the “inconsistencie s and omissions ” relied on by the I J are irrele vant as they do not “g o to t h e h ea rt o f t h e applica nt’s claim.” Sy lla , 3 88 F .3 d at 92 6; see also Me ce v . Gonzales , 4 15 F .3 d 5 62 , 5 72 (6 th Cir . 200 5) (“ [A]ll e g e d ‘ inc on sis te nc ie s and de fi c ie nc ie s’

. . . c ome nowher e close to supporting the conclusion that the substance of the c laim of perse cution is false.” ). For example, the name of the man who trave led with Sy from Seneg al to the United States, and Sy ’sSy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

Ac c or din g to S y ’s se c on d a sylum a pp lic a tio n, the man w ho ma de arr ang e me nts fo r S y to 13 g et a pa ssport never

g ave Sy his name. Ac cordingto his ora l te stimony , howeve r, Sy returne d the pa ssp or t to the man, wh os e name wa s Pa pe Di op , a ft e r t

he y arr ive d in

the Un ite d St a te s. On a pp e a l, S y argue s tha t the I J mis int e rp re te d his te sti mony and wr on g ly c on c lud e d tha t the same man w ho g a ve Sy his pa ssp or t tr a ve le d wi th him to t

he Un ite d St a te s. Sy ’s br ie f a dmi ts that in his a sylum a pp lic a tio n h e “ state d th a t th e man w ho a ssi ste d h im i n o bta ini nga pa ssp or t ne ve r g a ve him his name.” ( Pet’r’s B r. at 16.) I n contra st, “Petitioner alway s asser ted that he knew the name of the man whom ac companied him to the United States.” ( Id. ) Th e re c or d d oe s n ot s up po rt thi s int e rp re ta tio n. Sy ’s wr itt e n su bmi ssi on s and

or a l te sti mony

ind ic a te that the man who pr ovided the passpor t and the man who tr avele d with Sy to the United States wer e one and the same. ( See Pet’r’s App. a t 55; Supp. App. at 134.) 12 kn ow le dg e the re of

, p ro vides no a ssi sta

nc e in j ud g ingwh e the r S y su ff e re d p e rs e c uti on

in Mauritania. Cf., e.g. , Bi ba sh an i v . A sh c ro ft , 124 F. App’ x 361, 366 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished 13 dispositi on) (“ [M] inor inconsistencies r eg ardinghow Petitioner obtained money to flee A lbania do not suppo rt a

na dv e r s e c r e d ib il it

y f in d in g a s to p e r s e c u ti o n )

. L ik e w is e , th e s p e c if ic c a u s e o f Sy ’s mother’s death is unrelated to Sy ’s mis tr e a tme nt b y the Ma ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt a

nd do e s li ttl e to enhanc e his claim of pe rsec ution. See D aneshvar , 355 F.3d at 623 n.7. Pe tit ion e r’ s b ri e f, ho we ve r, do e s n ot atte mpt to r e bu t th e I J’s r e lia

nc e on inc on sis te nc ie s in Sy ’s re lation of his mistreatment by police. Sy ’s written stateme nts vag uely rec ount where and whe n Ma ur ita nia n a uth or iti e s mi str e a te d h im. Ac c or din g to S y ’s se c on d a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum : As so on a s I le arn e d o f t

he de po rt a tio n I

tr ie d to le a ve my

job t o tr y to loc a te my family

. The chief of police in K iffa threatened me and told me that I could not leave Kiffa . Iex p l ai n ed that Iwas g oing to look for my family . The c hief of police continued to threaten me and he order ed me to be de ported. I was fired from my job, ja ile d, de po rt e d, and tor

tue d [sic ]. I wa s tr ans fe rr e d to N ou a c kc ho tt p ri so n in Ap ri l o r Ju n e o f 1 9 8 9

. I n p r is o n I w a s to rtu r e d b y th e s o ld ie r s . T h e to rture include d pu tti ngou t th ie r [s ic ] ci g are tts [sic ] on my sk in

. I sti ll h a ve burn s o n my arm s shoulder and ha

nds. My wrist continue to have the marks of wher e ropes we re tiedSy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

13 tightly . On any g iven day I was repe adety [si c] kic ked and beate n with the butt of the so ldi e rs [sic ] g un on my he a d, sh ou lde r and ne c k. Iwa s a lso pla c e d in a ve ry sma ll c e ll wit h o t h e r s . T h e c e l l w a s s o s m a l l t h a tw e c o u l d b ar e l y b r e a t h

. M an y

pe op le died and we re le ft in the ce ll with the livi ng for da y s at a time. I

had little food and had to live with my

waste a nd the waste of others. I

pray ed to die rather than c ontinue to live under those inhumane conditions. (Pet’r’ s App. at 5 3

. ) During the hea ring , Sy testified that the two police of fice rs visited the g as station on April 19, 1989 and ac cused him of working for FLAM. During this visi t, he alleg es that they burned his bac k with cig are ttes, beat him, and steppe d on his hand. They then tied Sy ’s hands

and too k h im t o th e po lic e statio n whe re , af te r de ta ini ng him fo r fo ur ho ur s, the of fi c e rs re le a se d h im

an d told him he could not leave the c ountry for two months. Sy

then re turned to the g as station wher e h e c o n ti n u e d w o r

k in g . T w o mo n th s an d tw o d ay s la te r ( “ ar o u n d th e e n d of May – the beg inning of

J une”) , Sy

testified that police of

fice rs returne d to the g as station and broug ht Sy to the po lic e statio n, wh e re he re ma ine d f or tw o d ay s. (S up p. Ap p. a t 14 7. ) Th ey the n mo ve d h im t o Nouac kchott prison wher e he w as beaten with belts. T h e IJ co n cl u d edt h at t h es e t wo fo rm s o f t es t i m o n y co mp ar edu n fa v o rab l y , ex p l ai n i n g,

. . . in his wr itt e n a sylum a

pp lic a tio n the re sp on de nt ind ic a te s that he wa s b ur ne d w ith cig are tt e s a f

te r b e in g tr an s f

e r r e d to N o u a k c h o tt p r is o n , an d in a d d it io n tha t he rec eived other

phy sical beatings a n d ab use in Nouakc hott after be ing tr ansfe rre d there ; y et, ag ain, on Novembe r 14, 2006, in Court he claimed that this all happened on April 19th, the day he was arr ested in Kiffa at t he gas station. This s eems to be sig nif ic ant [s ic ] co ntr a dic tio n o r i nc on sis te nc y in t he vie w o f t

he Court
. (Supp. App. at 89.) The g ener alized nature of Sy ’s application – particula rly with r eg ard to se quence and timing – is the c a us e of so me of the a lle g e d in c on sis te nc y . T his c ourt ha s he ld that the “ a

bs e nc e of sp e c if ic incidents in the application . . . does not give rise to t he infe renc e” that the applicant is incre dible.Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

Sy e nc oura g e s th e c ourt

to f oll owthe Se c on d Cir c uit ’s pr e c e de nt and ho ld that an I J must 14 confr ont an applicant with nonobvious inconsistencies on which he or she mig ht rely in order to g ive the applica

n t an o p p ortunity

to expl ain the inconsistency

. See X ue v. B IA , 439 F.3d 111 ( 2d Cir. 2006). This c ourt previously ref raine d from adoptingthis requireme nt in Zhao v. Holder , 2 0 0 9 WL 1051299, *2-3 (6th Cir. April 20, 2009) ( unpublished disposit ion): 14 Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 638 (6th Cir. 2005). This is beca use “the circ umstances surr ounding the application process do not often le nd t h em s el ves to a pe rfe ctly complete a

nd compre hensive

rec itation of an applicant’ s claim t o asylum or withholding.” Id. (q u o t i n g Se c aid a-Ro sa le s v . I NS , 33 1 F .3 d 2 97 , 3 08 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 )) ; see also H amida v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 734, 739 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (q u o t i n g Liti ’s cr iticism of the applica t i o n fo rm ). As thi s court re cently explained in Kaba v. Mukase y , 546 F.3d 741, 749- 50 (6th Cir. 2008),

. . . the mere failure of a petitioner to inc lude ever y detail of an a sy lum claim in the application itself should not be co n s idere d fata l to a petitioner’s re quest for r elief. On the other ha

nd, an application should contain at least some indication of the ty pe of asse rtions that will be made in support of a claim. I n Kaba , the cour

t concluded that the petitioner’s “ complete lac k of spec ificity in both his orig inal

and a me nd e d a

pp lic a tio ns jus tif

ie s th e imm ig ratio n ju dge ’s sk e pti c ism a bo ut t he va lid ity

of tho se claims in this matter.” Id. I n this case, Sy ’s app l ication did not completely lack spe cificity , but at least one i n c o n s i s t e n c y s u

p p o rt s t h e IJ ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . In c o n t r a s tt o h i s o r a l t e s t i m o n y, Sy ’s applications clearly stated that the torture he suffe red – including being burned w ith ciga rettes

– occur red in prison, rathe r than at the g as station. Fur ther, the a pplications contained no me ntion

or eve n allusion to any m i s t re at m en t at the g as station, an eve nt that was ce ntral to Sy ’s ora l t e s t i m o n y. See B erri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 395 (6th Cir. 2006)

. But cf. Mec e v. G onzales ,

14Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

We note that the prophy lactic rule adopted by the S econd Circ uit in Ming Shi Xue

– requiringan I mmigration J udg e to g ive not ice of putative contradictions that are not self-e vident befor e he or she may rely on them – has not bee n adopted in any other circ uit. See e .g. , Sankoh v. M ukasey , 539 F.3d 456, 469- 70 (7th Cir. 2008). Nor do we ha ve occ asion to do so in this case . On the on e ha

nd , th e ru le is n ot i nc on sis te nt w ithour req uir e me nt t

hat c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns no t be ba se d o n irr e le va nt inc on sis te nc ie s. On the oth e r h and , th e ru le pe rm its re lia

nc e on wh a t cou ld oth e rw ise be c on sid e re d irr e le va nt i nc on sis te nc ie s if the I mmigration J udg e had g iven t he applica nt prior notice. Inasmuch a s the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e did

no t e xplic itl y

g ive pe tit ion e r p ri or

no tic e of his int e nt to r e ly on any non-dra

matic or irrele vant inconsistencies, he could not, per the r ule of Ming Shi Xue , r e ly on

the m – w hic h p la c e s th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e in s ub sta nti a lly the same pla c e a s o ur

g e ne ra l pr oh ibi tio n a g a ins t r e lia nc e on ir re le va nt i nc on sis te nc ie s. 15 415 F.3d 562, 572- 73 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding a failure to de tail that a beating occur red at the police statio n in an a sylum

a pp lic atio n is no t si g nif

ic ant e no ug h to su

pp or t an a dv e rse c re dib ili ty deter mination). I t wa s not unrea sonable for the I J to hold that Sy should have provide d additional

c or ro bo ratin g e vid e nc e . T ho ug h th e I J mista ke nly be lie ve d tha t Sy c ou ld obt a in a le tte r or a ff ida vit from his mother (de spite Sy ’s testimony reg ardingher de ath), Sy did testify that he sometimes speaks with his wife and that he sends his family money . (Supp. App. at 180.) When questioned a s to why he provide d no corr oborating letters, Sy testified that “[ t] hey

wer e wr iting letter s may

be the law y ers did not, did not get those letter s that they wer e wr iting them.” (

Id. ) Whil e “[t]he testim ony

of the applicant, if cre dible, may be suff icient to sustain the burden of pr oo f w ith ou t c or

ro bo ratio n, ” 8 C. F .R. § 12 08 .1 3( a ), the Sixth Cir c uit ha s up he ld t he B I A’ s r

ule that “whe re it is rea sonable to expect cor roborating evidence

. . . [t ]he absence of such c orrobor ating evidenc e ca

n lead to a finding t hat an applicant has failed to meet her burden of proof.” Dorosh v.Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

F or e xamp le , a c c or din g to t

he As se ssm e nt, Sy

state d th a t 15

. . . in Apr il, he wa s p la c e d und e r h ou se arr e st, tol d to sto p w or kin g , a nd to r e po rt to the police station daily . The a pplicant stated that whe n h e would go to the police station, the office rs would ca ll him names a nd beat him. The applicant would then b e r e l e a s e d

an d t o l d t o c o m e b a c k

t h e n e x td ay. (Supp. App. at 207.) The Assessment also mentioned that S y claimed he was “ forc ed to sig n a confe ssion” befor e his deportation fro m M au ri t ania, a nother issue that ne ver c ame up on dire ct examination. (

Id. at 94, 207.) 16 As hc ro ft , 3 9 8 F. 3 d 3 7 9 , 3 8 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g In re S- M-J

- , 1997 WL 80984, 21 I

. & N. Dec

. 722, 724-26 (B I A 1997)). B eca use Sy ’s tes t i m o n y “plausibl y could be view ed as inc redible, a nd

c e rt a inl y c ou ld b e vie we d a s in c on sis te nt .
. . a fa c t f ind e r r e a so nab ly c ou ld f ind that [Sy ’s ] testimony , absent c orrobor ation, was insufficient to me et his bur den or pr oof.” Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F. 3d 941, 954 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Sy also argues t hat t he I J improperly relied on the “Assessment to Refer ” and a ccompa ny ing

no te s. An As se ssm e nt t o Re fe r “ is a do c ume nt p re pa

re d b y an asy lum of fi c e r wh o ‘ me e ts i nf

or ma lly with the appli ca n t , consi ders the doc uments prese nted with the asylum application, then dec ides whether the m atter should be refer red to an I J for f

ormal adjudication.” Koulibal y v. M ukasey , 541 F.3d 613, 620 ( 6th Cir. 2008). On cross- examination, the g overnme nt used the Assessment to Refe r in its effort to impeac h Sy , pointing out issues Sy appar ently raised with the asylum of fice r but failed to mention on direct examination. 15 I n Kou lib aly , the Six th Circuit adopted the Ninth Ci rcuit’s re quirement that c ourts “ensur e that there exis ts sufficient ‘indicia of reliability ’ before relying upon a n Assessment to Refer .” Id.Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

17 (c i t i n g Singh v. Gonzales , 403 F.3d 1081, 1089 ( 9th Cir. 2005)). I n an ef fort to identify

such indicia, the c ourt qu ote d th e Ni nth

Cir c uit ’s e xplanatio n o f w hat an unr e lia ble As se ssm e nt lacke d : The Asse ssment To Refer does not contain any rec ord of the que stions and answer s at the asy lum interview, or other detailed, contempora ry , chronolog ical notes of the int e rv ie w, bu t on ly

a sh or t, c on c lus or

y su mma ry – ess e nti a lly , an op ini on . The re is no transcr ipt of the interview. There is no indication of the lang uag e of the interview or of the a dminist ration of a n oath bef

ore it took place . The a sy lum officer did not testify at th e re m o v al hea

ring . Finally , the applica nt was not asked at the hear ing befor e the I J about the ac cura cy o f t h e asy lum officer ’s re port or g iven any opportunity

to expl ain the discre pancie s the asylum officer perc eived. Id. (q u o t i n g Singh , 403 F.3d at 1089-90).) S y ’s Assessment to Refer is acc ompanied by

notes which include some of the que stions posed to Sy

and the a nswers he provided. The notes also indicate that Sy was “ place d under oath.” ( Su p p . A p p . a t 2 0 8

. ) See also 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .9 (“ Th e a sylum of fi c e r s ha ll h a ve a

uth or ity to administer oaths . . . .”) . Yet ther e is no transc ri p t of the interview and the a sy lum officer

did not testify at the re moval hear ing. F urthermor e, the a sy lum officer ’s not es provide no indication of the lang uag e of the interview and Sy ’s brief points out t hat “it is not clear whether the petitioner e ven understood the que stions posed to him , since the interview was conducte d in a lang uag e other than his ow n.” (Pet’r’ s Br

. at 23.) See also 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .9 (9 ) ( e xpla ini ngthat an “ a pp lic ant u na ble to proce ed with the intervie w in Eng lish mus t p ro v i d e, at no expense to the Service , a compe tent interpre ter,” restric ting who can serve as the i nterpre ter, and direc ting that “[f]ailure without good

cause to comply

with t h i s p ar agr ap h may be conside red a

failure to appea

r for the interviewfor purposes of § 208.10.” )Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

For the same r eason, w e do not re ach the BIA’s firm r esettlement de termination. 16 Sy further reque sts that this c ourt reje ct the B I A’s conc lusion that P etitioner did not meet his burden of showing that he: 1) suff ere d past perse cution on acc ount of his rac e, member ship in the Fulani e thn ic g ro up , a

nd imp ute d p oli tic a l op ini on and 2) ha s a we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

in Ma ur ita nia . T he pr ima

ry pr ob le m w iththi s argume nt i s th a t th e B I A n e ve r r eache d th ese iss ue s. I nstead it aff

irmed base d on the I J ’s adve rse c redibility and firm r esettlemen t d eter minations and e xplic itl y no te d t hat it “n e e d n ot a dd re ss t he a lte rn a te fi nd ingtha

t r e sp on de nt f

a ile d to e sta

bli sh elig ibilit y for r elief e ven assuming that he testified c redibly .” (Pet’r ’s App. at 3.) Sy also disputes the I J ’s conclusion that he failed to e stablish, by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, that he filed his a sy lum a

pplication within one y ear of enter ing the United States. Sy argues that “[t] he rec ord spea

k for its elf and clea

rly establishes t hat petitioner e ntere d that United States on J uly 15, 1998 and filed his application for asylum on Aug ust 16, 1998.” (Pet’r’ s Br . at 26.) Se e als o s up ra note 10. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (B ) an a lien cannot a pply for a sy lum unless he or she “ demonstrates by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the application has been filed wit hin 1 y ear afte r the date of the alien’s a rrival in the United States.” At Sy ’s hea ring , the g overnme nt a

rg ued that he “did not make a timely filing be cause he has no pr oof of e ntry .” (Supp. App. at 193.) Thoug h the I J ag ree d that Sy had not ca

rry his burden on this issue, we note that he ultimately conclude d that beca

use the Gover nment’s own cha

rg ing doc ument adopted the date on which Sy alleg ed he entere d the country – a date which plac ed Sy ’s a p p l i cation within one y ear – he would not bar

the asylum application on late fili ng g rounds. (S upp. App. at 96.) Cf. Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 921, 924 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (noting the appe llate cour t’s limit ed ability

to reviewapplications denie d for untimeliness). Ne ve rt he le ss, we take thi s o pp or tun ity to r e inf or c e the g uid anc e thi s c ourt pr ov ide d in 17 Hamida v. Gonzale

s , 478 F.3d 734, 740 ( 6th Cir. 2007): 18 Th e fa c ts i n th is c a se pr e se nt a ve ry c los e c a ll r e g ard ingthe re lia bil ity of the As se ssm e nt t o Refer . Howeve r, bec ause w e find that substantial evidence , independe nt of the Assessment to Refe r, supports the I J ’s adve rse c redibility determ i n ati on, we se e no re ason to rea ch the r eliability of the Assessment in this case. 16 For these re asons, and despite reje cting some of t he inconsist encie s relied on by the BI A, we ho ld t hat su bs tanti a l e vid ence su

pp or ts the I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n. Th e a dv e rs e 17Sy v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3928

Whil e our a

na ly sis re ve a ls, on

ba lanc e , th a t th e I J’s adve rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingis supported by

substantial evidence , we take issue wi t h many of the a lleg ed “inconsistencie s” the I J deeme d nece ssary to r ely upon – some of which are not true i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s o r

ar e s o i r r e l e v an tt h a tw e ar e l e f

t w i t h t h e i mp r e s s i o nt h a tt h e IJ rea ched f or any thing he cou l d fi n d

. This does not assist us in our review, a nd the re fo re we e nc oura g e I Js to c on c e ntr a te the ir e ff or ts o n r e le va

nt a nd le g iti ma te inconsistencies. See N’D iom v. Gonzales , 442 F.3d 494, 501 (6th Cir.2006) (Mar tin, J ., concur ring ) (“ The lea st we ca

n ask of the immig ration cour t is to provide a thoroug h and complete analy sis f o r its determination beyond identifying minor inconsistencies, c ultural diffe renc es, or languag e bar riers.” ) (c itation omit ted).

19 cre dibilit y deter

mination ther efor e prec ludes relief on Sy ’s claims for asylum, withhold i n g of

remova l, and withhol ding unde r the CAT. See El-Moussa v. Holder , — F.3d ––, 2009 WL1675754, at *6 (6th Cir. J une 17, 2009) ( unpublished disposit ion). III . C ON CL USI ON F or the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns , th is c ourt DE NI ES Sy ’s petition for re view of the BIA’s final orde r deny

ing his a pplication for a sy lum and related re lief.