The Honor able Ann A ldrich, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. The Home land Secur ity

Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codif ied as 1 a me nd e d in

sc a tte re d s e c tio ns of

6 U .S. C.) , a

bo lis he d th e I

NS. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0838n.06 F iled: Novem ber 15, 2006 No. 05-3872 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

EM M AN UE L SA AH , P etitioner , v. ALBERTO R. G ONZA LES , Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR REVIEW OF AN OR DE R O F THE B OA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N A P P EA LS

Before: K

ENNEDY and GIBBONS , Circuit Judges; ALDRICH, Distr ict Judge

. * JULIA S MITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Emmanuel Saah, a ppeals the decision of the Boa

rd of I mmigration Appe als (“B I A”) aff irming without opinion the dec ision of the I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) denying Saah’s application for asylum a nd withholding of remova l. F or the re asons below, we aff irm the BIA dec ision. I. Saah, a na tive and citizen of Camer oon, arr ived at Dulles Airport on April 22, 2001. On that day , a n im mi gr a ti o n in s p e c to r f o r th e th e n - I mmig ration and N atura liz ation Service interviewe d Saah 1Saah states that he was plac ed in immigration procee dings by a notice to a

ppear dated 2 April 6, 2001. Saah doe s not include a c opy of an A pril 2001 notice in the administrative re cord, and the only

notice to appe ar a

vailable to us is dated August 14, 2002. The matter

was tra nsfer red to De troit, Michiga

n, following a motion for cha ng e of 3 venue. Saah’s initial attempt to file with the immigration court was in er ror, a s responde nt 4 po int s o ut. As y lum

a pp lic ants are to f

ile wi th t he c e nte r s e rv ic ingthe a sylum of fi c e wi th 2 conce rning his backg round and the rea son for his pre sence in the United States. Saah re prese nted to the inspector that he had trave led t o the Unit ed States to attend a food and sa fety

confe renc e and ha d p lans to sta

y in the c ountr

y fo r two we e ks a t the War dma n Par k Mar ri ott Ho te l. Whe n ask e d to explain why

the Marr iott had no r eser

vation for Saa

h’s stay and why a hotel employ ee ha d informed the inspector that the confere nce was over, Saah claimed someone had assure d him the reser vation was made . Saah fur

ther stated that he had ne ver be en ar rested a ny wher e in the wor ld and did not fea r returningto Cameroon. On April 19, 2002, Saah at t empt ed to file a n application for

asylum and withholding of

remova l under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b) a nd 1231(b)( 3)(A) , and for

withholding o f removal under Ar ticle 3 of the U nited Nations Convention Ag a ins t T or

tur e and Othe r C ru e l, I

nhuma n o r D e g ra din g Treat men t or Pun ish me nt ( “ CA T” ) w ith the immigrati o n c o u rt in D e tr o it , M ic h ig an . T h e I N S is s u e d a n o ti c e to a

p p e ar d a te d A u g u s t 14, 2002, informing Saah that he w as subject to re moval for be ing a pot ential publ ic charg e, proc uring 2

a dm is sio n in to t

he Un ite d St a te s b y

fr a ud or wi llf ul m isr e pr e se ntatio n, and la c kin g va lid documentation per

mitti ng him to remain in the United States. The notice dir ecte d Saah to appe ar befor e an immig ration judg e in Arling ton, Virg inia. 3 Sa ah f ile d h is a sylum

a pp lic a tio n w iththe I

NS i n Se pte mbe r 200 3. Sa ah re pr e se nte d in his 4jurisdiction over the a pplicant’s plac e of r esidenc e, cur rent lodg ing, or

land borde r port-of

entry throug h which the a lien seeks a dmission. 8 C .F.R. § 1208(b) (1). F iling with the immigr ation court is appr opriate only

afte r exclusion, deportation, or re moval proce eding s have be g un. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(b)( 3)(i). A St a te De pa

rtme nt r e po rt

inc lud e d in

the re c or d e xpla ins : 5 The division betwee n Cameroonians a long ling uistic lines is a remnant of colonialism. After World War I , a L eague of N ations mandate pa rtitioned the Ger man colony

of Kamerun . . . be tween B ritain and F ranc e. In 1960, Fr ench Cameroon a chieve d independe nce a fter a n arme d strug g le and e stablished the re pu bli c of Came ro on . Ay e ar l a te r, the larg e ly Mu sli m no rt

he rn ha lf of B ri tis h Came ro on

vo te d to joi n N ig e ri a

wh ile the larg e ly

Chr ist ian s ou the rn

ha lf vo te d to join with the Republic of Cameroon, f orming the Fe dera l Republic of Cameroon, with eac h reg ion initi ally

maintaining substantial a utonomy . I n 1972, constitutional chang es provided f or strong centr al g overnme nt, thereby ending the status of the Ang lophone re g ion (today ’s Northwe st and Southwest provinces) as a fe dera l entity

within the Cameroon union. AR 354-55. 3 asylum application that he belong s to the Southern Cameroon National Council ( “SCNC”). As Saah descr ibed the purpose of the SCNC, the org anization seeks s ep ar at i o n of Camer oon betwee n the Ang lophones residing in the previously Br itish-occupied pa

rt of the c ountry

and the F ranc ophones in the part of the country

previously

colonized by

the Fr ench. Saah cla imed that the Cameroonia n 5 g overnme nt, controlled by the Cameroon People ’s Democ ratic Move ment, has re sisted divisi on and that, beca use he is an active m ember of t he S CNC, his return to Cameroon would re sult in “torture, mol e statio n, and vio la tio n of [his] hum an rig hts , ra pe , an d [bei ng ] be a te n to de a th. ” AR 36 1. I n h is appl i cation, S aah c ited as evide nce his Apr il 1997 detention and torture at the hands of the G e n d ar m ar i e , a C a m e r o o n i anp o l i c e f

o r c e w i t h p art i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n t e r n a l s e c u r i t y. On April 7, 2004, the I J assig ned to Saah’s application held an individual hear ing on Saa h’s application. At that hear ing, Saa h expanded on the information contained in his asylum application,4

descr ib i n g h i s functions in the SCNC and offer ing f urther inf ormation on the mistreatment he claimed to h av e s u ff

er ed at the ha

nds of the Camer oonian g overnme nt. The I J , by oral de cision, denied the e ntirety

of Saah’ s application on the g rounds t hat S aah filed his asy lum application afte r the one- y ear

deadline a

nd was not credible. S aah a ppeale d the I J ’s dec ision to t he B I A. On June 9, 2 0 0 5 , t h e B IA i s s u e d

ano r d e r a f f i r m i n g t h e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o nw i t h o u to p i n i o nan d d e e m i n g t h e IJ decision the fina l ag ency

deter mination. Saah appea ls.

II. Saah beg ins with a challeng e to the strea m l i n ed decisionmaking pr ocedur es g overning appea ls to the BI A. Althoug h Saah’s br ief is not entirely clea r as to the specific features he w ishes to c ha lle ng e , h e se e ms t o ta ke iss ue wi th t

he on e -j ud g e re vie w pr oc e dure pr ov ide d f or un de r 8 C.F .R. § 1003.1(e) (3) a

nd the af firmanc e-w ithout-opinion opt io n provided the B I A under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (4). Saah claims that both proce dures a re violative of

asylum petitioners’ rig ht to due pr oc e ss. We re vie w Saa

h’ s due pr oc e ss c la im de novo

. See, e .g. , Denk o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 726 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 391 ( 6th Cir. 1998). The Six th Circuit ha s consistently and def initively reje cted Saa

h’s ar g ument, finding that the BIA proc edure s he cha lleng es produc e no constitutional inj ury . See, e .g. , Lumaj v. Gonzales , 462 F .3 d 5 74 , 5 76 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) (r e je c tin g pe tit ion e r’ s c la im that si ng le -j ud g e revi ew and c le a rl y

e rr on e ou s re vie w stand ard vio la te d due pr oc e ss) ; Denk o , 351 F.3d at 730 (“ [I ]t is n ot a du e pr oc e ss vio l at i o n fo r t he B I A to aff irm the I J ’s dec ision without issuing an opinion.”) (interna l quotation marks omitted). We there fore hold, as have panels b ef o re us, that the BI A’s use of streamlined de c isi on makin g pr oc e dure s d oe s n ot i nf ri ng e on a pe tit ion e r’ s r ig ht t o d

ue pr oc e ss. III .Prior to the adoption of the REAL I D Act of

2005, Pub. L . 109-13, Div. B , 119 Stat. 231 6 (M ay 11 , 2 00 5) , th e Sixth C ir c uit he ld t hat f e de ra l la w p ro hib ite d ju dic ia l r e vie w o f t ime lin e ss decisions without reg ard to the ba sis of petitioner’s cla im on appeal. See Castellano-Chacon v. IN S , 341 F.3d 533, 544 ( 6th Cir. 2003). I n Almuhtaseb , th e c ourt mod if ie d it s h old ingin Castellano-Chacon to acc ount for the c hang es wroug ht by the Real I D Act. 453 F .3d at 748. 5 Sa ah a lso c ha lle ng e s th e I J’s d e c isi on to d e ny his a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum on tim e lin e ss g ro un ds

. Un de r the I

NA , an a lie n mus t fi le his a pp lic a tio n fo r a sylum

wi thi n o ne y e ar a ft e r t

he date of his arr ival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (B ). An a pplicant must provide clea r and convincing evidenc e that his filing complied with this require ment. Id. The I J found Saah did not file his asylum application until S eptember 2003, more than a y ear afte r his April 2001 arr ival in the United States and de nied the application on that basis. T h e S i x t h C i r c u i th a s h e l d t h a t t h e s t a tu t o r y p r o v i s i o n s g o v e r

n i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f

B IA decisions pre clude r eview of denials o f asy

lum applications for untimeliness wher e the pe titioner “see ks review

of discre tionary

or fa ctual questions,” r ather than constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction. Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006) (c onsidering the application of 8 U .S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (D))

. Saah does not argue that his claims fall wit hin either of 6 the se tw o e xce pti on s to the g e ne ra l r ule that an a

pp ell ate court

may no t r e vie w a

B I A t ime lin e ss decision, and we conclude S aah’ s claims do not qualify for review under the statute. We, theref ore, may not and do not consider the propriety of the I J ’s timeliness decision. IV. A petitioner who f

iles reque sts for withholding u n der the I NA and the CAT raises two distinct claims, subject to se parate leg al standards. An appe llate cour t review s the BIA’s dec ision on tho s e re q u est s utili zing an identica l standard, howe ver. See Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 749. Administrative finding s of fa ct “a re c onclusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would beSaah testified that other arr ests occur

red, but c ould not reca ll any of the infor

mation 7 relating to those a

rre sts. 6 compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). The court must uphold the B I A’s decision unless it is “manifestly contra ry to the law.” Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 749. The I NA prohibits remova l of an alien to a nother c ountry

if the Attorney

Gene ral de termines that the alien’ s “life or

fre edom would be t h re at en ed in that country beca use of the a lien’s ra ce, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinio n . ” 8 U.S .C. § 1231(b)( 3). A petiti oner must show “a clear probability , that is, that it i s more likely than not, that [he] would be subjec t t o p er s ec u t i o n on the basis of one of these f ive g rounds wer e [he] removed from this country .” Almuhtaseb , 4 53 F .3 d at 74 9 ( int e rn a l qu otation mark s o mit te d) ; se e als o Rreshpja v. Gonzales , 420 F.3d 551, 557 ( 6th Cir. 2005). An applica nt who demonstrates that he has s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u ti o nin

th e p r o p o s e d

c o u n tr y o f r e mo v a l e n

jo y s a p r e s u mp ti o n“ th a t t

he

a pp lic ant’ s li fe or

fr e e do m w ou ld b e thr e a te ne d in the futur e in the c ountr y of re mov a l on the ba sis of the orig inal claim.” 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(b)(1) (i). B y c on tr a st, a

pe tit ion e r s e e kin g wi thh old ingof re mov a l un de r t

he CA T i s n ot r e qu ir e d to show that any

alleg ed prospe ctive har

m is based on one of the protec ted g rouping s under the I NA. Almuhtaseb , 4 53 F .3 d at 75 1; Castellano-Chacon , 341 F .3 d at 55 1. I ns te a d, a pe tit ion e r m

us t demonstrate a “par

ticularized threat of torture.” Id. I t must be “more likely than not that he or she would be torture d if remove d to the proposed c ountry of re moval.” Rr eshpja , 420 F.3d at 557 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2))

. Saah testified to thre e instance s of perse cution and torture in Camer oon. The fir st incident 7

occur red in Apr il 1997, when he wa s arr ested by two members of

the Gendarmer ie and taken to the7

loc a l poli ce st atio n. Sa ah s ta te d th a t du ri ngthe we e k h e wa s h e ld, he wa s in te rr og a te d, fo rc e d to str ip nake d, su

bje c te d to inc re a sin g ly se ve re be a tin g s, tarr e d, ma de to m a sturb a te , a nd le ft in a c e ll with two fee t of standing water . I n November 1997, Saah wa s alleg edly taken f rom his home by

four

m embers of the Ge ndarme rie a nd returne d to prison where he wa s subjected to similar ac ts of ph y sic a l a bu se . Sa ah’ s Nov e mbe r de te nti on la ste d for thr e e da y s ac c or din g to his a c c ount. I n Apr il 2000, Saah cla imed, he wa s taken fr om the fish marke t in L imbe, his home, and deta ined for f our

mon ths , d ur ing wh ic h time he wa s the vic timof a bu se ne arl y

ide nti c a l to that he su ff

e re d d ur inghis previous dete ntions. According to Saah, a relative informed him that the Camer oonian g overnme nt pla nn e d to kil l hi m be c a

us e of his a c tiv iti e s w ithSCN C. T his wa rn ing , alo ng wi th a

se ri e s o f t hr e a ts on his life, prompted him to leave Came roon. The I J deeme d Saah’s testimony “inher ently incre dible,” finding it “inconsistent on its face . . . inconsistent with his application, and . . . diametrica lly opposed to his s t at ement at the Dulles Ai rp or t . .
. . ” AR

41 . B a se d u

po n th is a dv ers e c re dib ili ty fi nd ing , th e I J re

je c te d Sa ah’ s r e qu e st for withholding under both the I NA and the CAT. The I J identified a se ries of pr oblems in Saah’s

acc ount of his a

buse while in Cameroon that led him to discredit Saah’s claim, noting, first , that Sa ah’ s st a te me nt t o th e imm ig ratio n in sp e c tor up on hi s arr iva l in

the Un ite d St a te s d ir e c tly

c on tr a dic te d h is l a te r cl a im that he ha d b e e n a rr e ste d r e pe a te dly

and fe are d f or his lif e if re tur ne d to Cameroon. When aske d about his ear lier re prese ntations to the imm igr ation inspector, Saa h testified to having no rec ollection of what transpired at that meeting

. The I J observe d a ser ies of discre panc i es i n Saah’s r eport of a buse at the ha

nds of the Cameroonia n go v ernme nt. He could not provide a fixed acc ount of the number of times he was detained w hile in Cameroon or the dates of his dete ntion. He also fa iled to provide a f ull description8

in his asy lum application of the for ms of abuse he s u ff

er ed an d was una

ble to produce any documentation confirming the injuries sustained as a result of his time in detention. Finally , Saah testified that m ember s of the Ge ndarme rie re lease d him even thoug h, acc ording to his testim ony , he informed them that he would continue his ac tiviti es with the SCNC. This, t he I J conclude d, made littl e sense if Saah’s de tention was intended to de ter fur ther a ctivities on the party ’s beha lf. I n addition, Saah was una ble to produce the originals of any of t he documents he produc ed as evide nce a

nd offe red w hat the I J deeme d to be an u n b el i evable explanation for this omiss ion. Saah testified that his c ar, containing the orig inals, was stolen the previous e vening . Asked a bout the c ir c ums tances su rro un din g the ro bb e ry , Sa ah r e c ite d a le ng thy sto ry , w hic h th e I J ultim a te ly deeme d “complete ly

made up.” AR 44. The I J ref used t o admit copies of the m ater ials offe red by Saah on the g round that the doc uments were “inher ently unreliable on their fa ce.” AR 43. Th e I J als o f

ound impla us ibl e Sa ah’ s c la ims that th e Came ro on ian g ov e rnme nt w a s o ut t o ha rm him . H e e xpre sse d d isb e lie f that a govern ment Sa ah c la ime d w a s se t on kil lin g him

wo uld

a llo w h im t o c on tin

ue wo rk ingfo r t

he Came ro on ian D e ve lop me nt C or po ra tio n, an e nti ty

par tly owned by the g overnme nt, following Saa h’s ar rest. He al s o d iscounted Saah’ s claim that the g overnme nt w o uld kill hi m upon his arrival in Camer oon, noting that the sa me g overnme nt had permitted Saah to obtain a passport and pass throug h border control in order to tra vel to the United States. The I J further

noted that Saah f

raudule ntly obtained his visa to travel to the United States and cited this initial act of dishonesty as evide nce of Saah’s tende ncy

to “[tell] some lie in order to ge t

w h a th e w an t s . . . . ” A R 5 6

. O b v i o u s l y c o n v i n c e d S a ah h a d c o n t r i v e d n e ar l y a l l o f

h i s t e s t i m o n y, the I J re fu se d in

the str on g e st t e rm s to c re dit Sa ah’ s te sti mony

and , o n th a t g ro un d, de nie d h is9

reque sts for withholding of remova l under the I

NA and the CAT. Credibility

decisions by

an I J are fa ct u al findi ng s for a ppellate r eview pur

poses, and a revie wing court must deter mine whether

substantial evidence supports the I J ’s finding s of fa ct. Bah v. Gonzales , 4 62 F .3 d 6 37 , 6 40 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925 (6t h C i r. 2 0 0 4). “While an adv er s e c re d i b i l i t y fi n d i n g i s af

fo rd eds u b s t an t i al d ef

er en ce , t h e f

i n d i n g m u s tb e s u

p ported by specific rea sons.” Id. a t 92 6. Any inc on sis te nc ie s in an a

pp lic ant’ s r e pr e se ntatio ns mus t “ g o to the hea rt of the a

pplicant’s cla im.” Id. “I f discre pancie s cannot be viewed a s at tempts by the applicant to enha

nce his c laims of perse cution, they have no be aringon cre dibilit y .” Id. (interna l quotation marks and c itation omit ted). Sa ah’ s b ri e f o ff

e rs no su bs tanti ve re sp on se to t

he in con si st e nc ie s r e lie d u po n b y the I J in

makin g his de c is io n. We n ote , h ow e ve r, that th e I J like ly pla c e d und

ue we ig ht u

po n c e rt a in problems with Saah’s testimony . For instance, the Six th Circuit has dismis sed the sig nificanc e of inc on sis te nc ie s in

date s p ro vid e d b y

an a pp lic ant w he re the y are un re la te d to an a pp lic ant’ s c la ims

o f p er s ec u t i on. Se e Y

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 4 F

. 3 d

7 0 0 , 7 0 4 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )

. Si mi la

r ly , th e c o u rt ha s

su g g e s t e d t h a ti n i t i a l a i r

p o rti n t e r v i e w s w i th i m m i g r at i o n p e r s o n n e l c o n s t i tu t e qu e s t i o n a b le impeachme nt materials bec ause o f t h e tra nslation problems attending attempts to interview individuals upon their arriva l in the United States. See id. at 703 n.4. Th os e fl aws in the I J’s ana ly sis no tw ith sta nd ing , w e are bo un d to up ho ld a B I A c re dib ili ty assessment unless the e vidence compels a differ ent re sult. Cf. Syllva , 388 F.3d at 925 (“A r eviewing

c ourt sh ou ld n ot r e ve rs e sim

ply be c a us e it i s co nv inc e d th a t it wo uld have de c ide d th e c a se d i f f e r e n t l y . ” ) ( i n t e r

n a l qu o t a t i o nm ar

k s o m i t t e d )

. W h i l e t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i d e n t i f i e d b y t h e IJ might not, standing alone, wa rra nt affir mance o f t h e BI A dec ision, they collectively

provide a10

sufficie nt g round t o question the ver acity of Saah’ s claims of per secution and imminent harm. See Bah , 462 F.3d at 642 (holding that even thoug h I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination was not based on “over whelming evidenc e,” w here petitioner fa iled to de monstrate that evidenc e re quired c ontrary

re su lt, c ourt

wo uld a ff ir m B I A d e c isi on ); Yu , 364 F.3d at 704 ( n o ting that “ cumulative ef fec t” of min or inc on sis te nc ie s su

pp or te d I J’s o the r g ro un ds fo r d e nia l of a sylum ). Th e I J fin din g wa s n ot s o

err oneous that it compels a c ontrary conclusion, and, f

or that re ason, we will not disturb the decision

o f t h e B I A t o u

p h o l d t h e IJ ’s ru l i n g. V. For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the dec ision of the BIA deny ing Saa h’s application for asylum and reque sts for withholding of remova l.