The Honor able Da niel M. Frie dman, United States Circuit J udg e for the United States Court * of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit, sit ting 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: 09a0435n.06 No. 08-4116 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I SSA S AO, P etitioner , v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., United States Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VI EW FROM THE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS
O P I N I O N

Be for e : M OORE, G IBBO NS, and F RI ED M AN , Ci r c uitJudg e s. * KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioner I ssa S ao, a native and citiz en of Mauritania, se eks re view of a decision of the Boa

rd of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) aff irming the I mm i gration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) de nial of his application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . Be cause the evidenc e in the rec ord does not compel re versa l of the dete rmination of the B I A and I J that Sao’s t est imony contained a
su bstant ia l in c on sis te nc y

and that Sa o f

a ile d to c ome fo rw ard

wi th r e a so na

bly a va ila ble
corr oborating evidenc e, we DENY the petition for re view.2 I. BACKG ROUND3

Sa o is a tw e nty -e ig ht- y e ar- old

c iti zen of Ma ur ita nia wh o a rr ived in the Un ite d St a te s in J anuar y 2004 using a fra

udulent passport. On J une 8, 2004, he applied f or asylum, withholdi ng of
remova l, and CAT protec tion, c laiming past perse cution and a fea r of future pe rsec ution on account of his rac e, nationality , and political opinion. On Dec ember 3, 2004, an asy

lum officer

found Sao ineligible for asylum a

nd ref err ed his c ase to a

n I mmigration Judge (“I J ”). The I J h el d a r em oval hear ing on N ovember

27, 2006. I n his testimony

befor e the I J , Sao stated that he and his family , who ar e blac k Afric ans and Fulani spe aker s, were perse cuted by Whit e Moors, who a

re e thnically

Ara b and contr ol the Ma ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt a

nd mil ita ry . Sa o te sti fi ed th a t in

19 90 Whit e Mo or s se ize d p art of his fathe r’s a g ricultural land in Ma uritania. Then, in 1995, as his father was re turning from a c attle drive betwee n Mauritania a

nd Seneg al, White Moors preve nted Sao’s father fr om returning to Mauritania, forc ing him to remain in Seneg al for thr ee months until he was a ble to ree nter Maur itania without authorization. Sa o f ur the r t e sti fi e d th a t in

20 00 a g ro up of six or se ve n s old ie rs c a me to h is f a mil y ’s ho me
a n d d e m an d e d t h e f

a m i l y ’ s i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n c ar d s . A c c o r d i n g t o S a o , t h e s o l d i e r s w an t e d the Sa os ’ identification ca

rds in order

to use them t o ca st votes for White Moor candidates in a pending elec tion. Sao’s father

ref used, evide ntly

beca use of f ear s relatingto the 1995 incident i n which he
was re fused r eentr

y into Ma uritania. Sao’s fathe r was then alleg edly struck on the knee with a rubber baton, handc uffe d, and pushed the g round, at which point a soldier place d his foot on Sao’s fathe r’s throat. When Sao attempted to help, he too was beaten with a rubber baton, handcuf fed, a nd forc ed to the g round, whe re a

soldier stepped on his nec k. Sao testified that he a n d h i s fa t her w ere then taken to a police st ation, wher e they wer e held for three months and seve rely mistreated a

nd tortured.4

For the first four

day s, Sao and his fathe r we re he ld naked in a sma ll c ell and denie d food. During the thr e e -mon th det enti on , a c c or din g to S a o, bo th h e and his fathe r w e re be a te n d ur ingse pa

rate interrog ation sessions; they wer e for ced to undr ess while cold water wa s poured on the m and wer e then whipped with leather sticks; a nd Sao’s fathe r was burned with c iga rettes on his arms, leg s, and neck. Af

te r b e ingde ta ine d f

or thr e e mon ths , Sao te sti fi e d tha t he an d h is f a the r, no w j oin e d b y

his mot he r a nd sis te r, we re dr ive n, bli nd fo lde d a nd ha nd c uf fe d, to t he ri ver th a t se pa

ra te s Ma ur ita nia from Seneg al. There, they wer e placed on canoe s and ferrie d to a villag e on the Sene g alese side of the r iv e r w h e r e th e y w e r e dr o p p e d w it h o u t an y d o c u me n ts o r p o s s e s s io n s . Wi th th e h e lp o f a Se ne g a le se vil la g e r, Sa o and hi s famil y we nt t o D a ka

r, Se ne g a l, w he re Sa o w a s a lle g e dly hospitaliz ed for

fiftee n day s and treated for the injuries he suf fer ed in detention. Ac cordingto Sao, he then lived in Dakar f or four y ear s, during which time he wor k ed as a s t reet vendor a nd
unsucce ssfully

applied for

asylum in S eneg al. Acc ording to Sao, his uncle in S eneg al paid a
smu g g le r to o b ta in a f

r a u d u le n t Se n e g a le s e p a s s p o rt an d U
. S. v is a , an d o n Ja n u ar y 1 0 , 2 004, Sao fl e w f ro m D a ka r t o Pa ri s and the n to Ne w Y or

k. Sa o te sti fi e d th a t he re ma ine d in tou c h with

his family , who re main in Seneg al wher e they live with Sao’s uncle. Following the re moval hear ing, the I J issued a wr itten d ec i s i o n denying Sao’ s claims for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and CAT prote ction. First, the I J found that Sao’s testimony was not cre dible. The I J explained that Sao’ s testimony at the remova l he aring was inconsistent w ith the statements Sao made dur ing his e arlier interview w ith the asy lum officer . The I J noted two d i s cr ep an ci es: (1) Sao told the a sy lum officer that he could not re member the airline on whic h he flew to the U nited States, but testified at the hearing that he flew Air Franc e; and (2) Sao testified5

at the hea ring about the 1995 incident in w hich his f ather was denied ree ntry to Ma uritania, but failed to me ntion this incident to the asylum of fice r. The I J also found that Sao’s testimony at the re moval he ari ngwa s in te rn a lly inc on sis te nt. Th e I J n ote d the fo llo wi ngtw o d isc re pa nc ie s: ( 1) Sa o in iti a lly testified that he ha d no contac t w ith a ny one in Ma

uritania, but later stated that he had obta ined an identification docume nt from a friend in Ma uritania; and (2) Sao initially testified that he had be en denied a sy lum in S eneg al, but later state d that he neve r rec eived a response to his applications. The I J als o f ound tha t Sa o’ s a dmi tte d u se of

a fr a ud ule nt p a ssp or

t and vis a fu rt he r u nd e rm ine d h is
c r e d i b i l i t y. I n addition to finding Sao’s te stimony not cre dible , t h e I J deter mined that Sao did not satisfac torily

corr oborate his claims with reasona bly availa b le evidenc e. The I J found that Sao
re a so na bly c ou ld h a ve c or

ro bo rate d h is c la ims of

pe rs e c uti on

wi th an a ff

ida vit or le tte r f ro m hi s pa re nts , s ist e r, or

un c le , a ll o f w ho m li ve in s a fe ty in S e ne g a l. Th e I J als o f

ound that Sa o r e a so na

bly could have provided c orrobor atingevidenc e of his applications for asylum in Seneg al. Sao testified
a t th e he ari ng that he wa s un awa re that su c h e vid e nc e wo uld be he lpf ul, bu t th e I J disc ounte d th is explan a ti o n b e c a

u s e Sa o w a s r e p r e s e n te d b y an e xp e r ie n c e d a tt o r n e y . I n a d d it io n , th e I J found unreliable the principa l corrobor ating evidenc e submitt ed by Sao—a medica l cer tificate pur

porting to document Sao’s stay

in the Seneg alese hospital. The I J observe d that t h e cer tificate w as date d November

12, 2000, when Sao a lleg edly enter ed the hospital, y et s ay s that Sao stay ed at the hospital for fiftee n day s. The I J noted that “if the medical cer tificate w ere acc urate and re liable, medica l staff could not have know n how long Sao would be hospitalized and alre ady fix ed his dischar g e date .” J oint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 17 (I J Dec . at 10).6

B a se d on th e a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n a

nd Sa o’ s f a ilure to p ro vid e re a so na bly available corr oborating evidenc e, the I J conclude d that Sao had failed to me et his bur den of proving elig ibilit y for a sy lum, withholding of re moval, and CAT prote ction. Sao appea led the I J ’s dec ision to the B I A, wh ic h d ism iss e d th e a pp e a l on Au g us t 13 , 2 00 8. Th e B I A u ph e ld t he I J’s a dv e rs e
c re dib ili ty de te rmin ati on , ex pl ain in g that th e I J hadid ent if ied “su bs tan ti a l om iss ion s b e tw e e n [Sa o’ s] testimony at his individual hearingand his testimony befor e the a sy lum offi ce r wh i ch are indeed prese nt in the rec ord of pr ocee ding and for w hich the re spondent has fa iled to provide suffic ient and ade q u at e ex p l an at i o n on appea l.” J .A. at 6 (B I A Dec . at 1). The BIA also ag ree d with the I J ’s deter mination that Sao had failed to provide rea sonably available corr oborating evidenc e. On the basis of the a dverse cre dibilit y ruling , the BI A di smissed Sao’s appeal. Sao filed a timely petition for r eview of

the B I A’s dec ision. II. AN AL YSI S A. Adverse Cre dib ility Dete rm ination Sao argues that the a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination is not entitled to de fer ence beca use the inconsistencies c ited in the BIA dec isio n are minor and do not “g o to the hear t of” his claim for
a sylum . “ Whe re the B I A a do pts the I J’s r e a so nin g , th e c ourt re vie ws the I J’s d e c isi on dir e c tly to deter mine whether

the dec ision of the BIA should be upheld on a ppeal.” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 282-83 (6th Cir. 2005). How ever , “[w]hen the BIA does not summarily aff irm or adopt the I J ’s
rea soning a

nd provide[s] an explanation for its dec ision, we revie w the BIA’s dec ision as the final
a g e n c y d e te r

mi n a ti on.” F

a n g Huang v. M

ukasey , 523 F.3d 640, 651 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks omitted) (sec ond alter ation in orig inal). In this case, the B I A adopted only that portion of t he I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination in which the I J identified inconsistencie s7

betwee n Sao’s statements duringhis interview with the asylum of fice r and his later

testimony

befor e the I J during the remova l he aring
. As the g overnme nt conce des, the B I A did not adopt either

the I J ’s finding that there wer e interna l inconsistencies in Sao’s testimony at the removal hea

ring or the I J ’s fi nd ingthat Sa o’ s u se of a fr a ud ule nt p a ssp or

t and vis a to e nte r t

he cou nt ry

un de rm ine d h is
cre dibilit y . Be cause the B I A did not a dopt the se finding s, they are not pa rt of the BIA’s dec ision and
are no t be fo re thi s c ourt . A c c or din g ly , o ur re vie w o f t

he I J’s a dv e rs e c redib il it y dete rm inatio n is limit ed to the t wo inconsistencies ide ntified by the I J that wer e adopte d by the B I A: (1) the inconsistency

betwee n Sao’s testimony

befor e the I J that he fle w Air F ranc e to the United States a nd his earlier statement to the asylum officer that he could not re member w hich airline he flew; a nd (2) the inconsistency

betwee n Sao’s testimony befor e the I J about t he 1995 incident i n which his fathe r was de nied re entry to Mauritania and hi s ear lier fa ilure to mention this incident to the asy lum officer
. “Credibility

deter minations are c onsidered f indings of f

act, a n d ar e reviewed unde r the substantial evidence standard.” Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925 ( 6th Cir. 2004). “Un d er that standard, f

indings of f

act a re tre ated a s ‘c o n clusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .’” L i t i v. Go n z a l es , 411 F.3d 631, 636 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (q u o t i n g Y

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 64 F .3 d 7 00 , 7 02 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ). Al tho ug h “ ‘a n a dv e rs e cred ib ility finding is affor ded substant i al def ere nce, the finding must be supported by specific rea sons. An adver se cr edibility

finding must be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applicant’ s claim. They cannot be based on a

n irrele vant inconsistency .’” Id. at 6 3 7 (q u o t i n g Sy lla , 3 8 8 F
. 3 d a t 9 2 6 )
. We have f urther stated that thoug h adver se cr edibility deter minations c annot be ba sed upon “irr eleva nt inconsistencies,” “discre pancie s may be re levant if they

can be viewed as attempts by the applica

ntTh e REA LI D A c t of 20 05 , Pu

b. L . 1 09 -1 3, 11 9 St a t. 2 31 , ame nd e d 8 U. S.C. 1 § 1158(b)( 1)(B )(iii) to state that a trier of fac t may make a cre dibilit y

deter mination “without reg ard to whether

an inconsistency , inacc urac y , or fa lsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a pplicant’s cla im.” 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B)( iii ); see Am ir v. Gonzalez , 4 67 F .3 d 9 21 , 9 25 n. 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) . T his chang e applies only to a sy lum a pplicants who file on or afte r May 11, 2005. Be cause Sao applied fo r as y lum

on June 8, 20 04 , th e c ha

ng e do e s n ot a

pp ly he re , a nd the a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

fi nd ingmus t be ba se d o n is su e s th a t g o to the he art of his c la im. 8 to enhanc e his claims of pe rsec ution.” Ndrecaj v. M ukasey , 522 F.3d 667, 674- 75 (6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks omitted). 1 Th e fi rs t di sc re pa

nc y ide nti fi e d by the I J wa s th a t Sa o to ld t he a sylum

of fi c e r t hat he c ou ld not remem b er wh i ch airline he had flown to the U nited States but later testified at the remova l hear ing that he had f

lown Air F ranc e. The I J observe d that “Sao had no explanation why he for g ot the name of

the airline to tell the Asylum Office r, y et re membere d it for pu rp o s es of his asylum hear ing.” J .A. at 12 (I J Dec . at 5). The I J did not ex plain how this discrepa ncy went to the hea

rt of Sa o’ s a sylum

c la im. Th e g ov e rnme nt c on te nd s th a t Sa o “ a lte r[e d] hi s te sti mony a bo ut h is e ntr

y int o the United States” in orde r “to re medy the def ect [of lack of

detail] in hi s te s t i m o ny

befor e the asylum officer ,” and note s the lack of corr oboration of his trave l claims. Gov’t Br. at 16. Howeve r, nothing in the r ecor d sug g ests that Sao provided contradictory acc ounts of his basic trave l path from Ma ur ita nia , v ia Se ne g a l, t o th e Un ite d St a te s o r t hat Sa o te sti fi e d in c on sis te ntl y a s to the date of

his
arr ival in the United States. I nstead, thi s discrepa ncy involves only the name of t he par ticular a irline that Sao flew to the United States. Absent specia l c ircumstance s, we c annot see how the name of the airline f

lown by an asy lum applicant to the United States could possibly enhanc e an a pplicant’s claim o f p a s t p e r s e c u ti o n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e h a v e s e r io u s d o u b ts a b o u t w h e th e r th is minor discrepa nc y c an r e a s o n a b ly b e “ v ie w e d a s [an ] a tt e mp t[ ] b y [S a o ] to e n h an c e h is c la im s of perse cution” such that it goes to the he art of Sao’ s asylum claim. Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 674-75.9

The other inconsistency cited by the I J in support of its adverse cre dibilit y deter mination (and adopted by the BIA) is f

ar more substantial. Sao te stified at his removal he aringthat his father was de nie d r e e ntr

y to M a ur ita nia in 1 99 5, bu t Sao fa ile d to men tio n this inc ide nt in his i nte rv ie w w ith the a sylum of

fi c e r. “ L ike a ff

ir ma tiv e inc on sis te nc ie s, omi ssi on s may fo rm the ba sis of an a dv e rs e
cre dibilit y

deter mination, provided that they are substantially

related to the asylum claim.” Liti , 411 F.3d at 637. Howeve r, we have “ exercise[d] e x t ra car e in eva luating omissions from asylum
a pp lic a tio ns ” be c a

us e of the “ dif fi c ult ie s a sylum

se e ke rs fa c e in p ro vid ing e xha us tiv e a c c ounts in asylum applications,” Shkabari v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 324, 329 (6th Cir. 2005) , and we believe that this cautious approa ch should also apply when e valuating omissions in interviews with asylum
o ff i ce rs . As we h av e e x p l ai n ed , “‘ t h e c i rc u m s t an ce s s u rr o u n d i n g t h e ap p l i ca t i o np ro cess do not often le nd the mse lve s to a

pe rf e c tly c omp le te and

compr e he ns ive re c itatio n o f a n a pp lic ant’ s c la im t o
a sylum or wi thh old ing , and
. . . h old inga pp lic ants to s uc h a

sta nd ard is n ot o nly

un re a lis tic bu t a lso unfair.’ ” Liti , 4 1 1 F. 3 d

at 6 3 8 (q u o t i n g Se c aid

a-Ro sa le s v . I NS , 331 F.3d 297, 308 ( 2d Cir. 2003)). We b e lie ve tha

t this omi ssi on g oe s to the he art of Sa o’ s a sylum c la im. Sa o’ s a sse rt ion

a t hi s hear ing that his fathe r was denied reentry to Mauritania in 1995 e nhance d his claim of per secution by sug g esting that his f

amily had a history of perse cution by Whit e Moors a

nd by providing cruc ial
c on te xt fo r t

he e ve nts of

20 00 . Sa o te sti fi e d at hi s h e ari ngthat in 19 95 hi s fat her had

c ro sse d to Seneg al during a cattle dri v e and w as denie d ree ntry to Mauritania by

Whit e Moors at the border , forc ing Sao’ s fa t h er t o rema in in Seneg al for thr ee months. Sao fur ther testified that this 1995 incident was c onnecte d to the events of 2000 in whic h he and his fathe r were detained and be aten. Acc ording t o S ao , when soldiers c ame to his family ’s home in 2000 and de manded the f amily ’s ide nti fi c a ti on

c ard s, his fa

the r r e fu se d b e c a

us e of fe ars ste mmi ngfr om t

he 19 95 inc ide nt. Th is10

ref usal to comply

with the soldiers’ dema

nds led direc tly

to the detention and be ating s suffer ed by Sao and his fathe r. Sao’s a ccount of the events of 1995, there fore , provides important support and
c on te xt fo r h is c la im o f p e rs e c uti on in 2 00 0. With ou t th e pr ior de nia l to his father o f reen tr y to Mauritania by

Whit e Moors in 1995, there is no ex planation (in t he record) for why Sao’s father wa s
so ste a df a st i n h is r e fu sa l to pr ov ide the fa mil y ’s ide nti fi c a tio n c ard s to the so ldi e rs in 2 00 0. Th is
cruc ial backg round fa ct provides the e x planation: Sao’s father fe are d that if the family ’s ide nti fi c a tio n card s we re take n, the y c ou ld be de po rt e d f ro m Ma ur ita nia and de nie d r e e ntr

y be c a us e they lacke d identification car ds, as he had been in 1995. Be cause we believe this inconsistency by
ear lier omission goe s to the hear t of Sao’s asylum claim, we conclude that it could serve as a pr oper basis for the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. Although this one inc onsistency by ear lier om ission, st anding alone, would likely be insufficient to support the I J ’s adve rse c redibility finding , our dec ision in t his case r est s on the
c omb ine d e ff

e c t of the pr ob le m wit h Sa o’ s te sti mony and Sa o’ s f a ilure to p ro vid e re a so na bly available corr oborating evidenc e. See, e .g. , Xue Rong Zheng v . Holder , 315 F. App’ x 570 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) ( upholding a dverse cred i b i lity finding based upon a

lack of corr oborating evidenc e combined w ith inconsistenc i es i n testimony). The B I A ag ree d with the I J ’s finding that Sao failed to provide rea sonably available corr oborating evidenc e, and the BIA’s decision provided no additional analy sis. Accor dingly , we r eview the I J ’s deci sion on this poi nt as the final a g ency decision. See Kaba v. Mukase y , 546 F.3d 741, 747 ( 6th Cir. 2008). We must uphold a finding by the I J reg ardingthe availability of corr oborating evidenc e unless we f ind “that a r easona

ble trier ofA provision of the Rea l I D Act amende d 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) to a dd this new standar d of 2 revie w. Real I D Act of

2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, § 101(e), 119 Stat. 231, 305 (2005). As we ha ve e x p l a i n e d e l s e w h e r e , “ [ t ] h i s p r o v i s i o na p p l i e s e v e nt o p e t i t i o n s , s u c h a s t h i s o n e , w h e r e t h e B IA acte d prior to the enactment of the le g islation.” Shkabari v. Gonzales , 4 27 F .3 d 3 24 , 3 31 n. 2 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (citing Real I D Act § 101( h)(3) , 119 Stat. at 305-06). 11 fa c t is c omp e lle d to c on c lud e that su c h c or ro bo ratin g ev iden c e is u nava ila ble .” 8 U .S. C. § 1252(b)( 4). 2 We c an f ind no thi ngin t

he re c or d th a t c omp e ls re ve rs a l of the I J’s fin din g that Sao f a ile d to prese nt r easona

bly available corr oborating evidenc e. “While r ecog nizi ng that corr oboration is not
re qu ir e d, we have a lso state d th a t e ve n if the a pp lic ant i s credi bl e, ‘[t]he a bs e nc e of [re a so na bly available ] corr oborating evidenc e can l ead to a finding t hat an applicant ha s failed to mee t her burde n of proof .’” Liti , 4 1 1 F. 3 d

at 6 4 0 (q u o t i n g Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 8 F. 3 d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004)) (alter ations in Liti ). As the I J explained, it was re asonable to expect Sao to corrobor ate his testimony by providing aff

idavits or letters from family members who wer e fa miliar with the events desc ribed by Sao. Sao’s par ents and sister r emain in Seneg al, wher e they live with his uncle. Sao testified that he re ma ine d in c on ta c t wi th his fa mil y and c a lle d the m fr om tim e to tim e . Gi ve n th e re la tiv e sa fe ty of his family ’s dom icile i n Seneg al and the f act that Sao r emained in touch w ith his family , it was
rea sonable for

the I J to expect Sao to obtain affidavits or letter s from family members. Indeed, Sao te sti fi e d th a t hi s si ste r s e nt f ro m Se ne g a l a med ic a l ce rt if ic a te purp or

tin g to doc ume nt S a o’ s st a y in
a Se ne g a les e ho sp ita l. F ur the rm or e , th e I J pro pe rl y de te rm ine d th a t Sa o f

a ile d to e xpla in satisfac torily

his failure to support his claim with affidavits or letters from f amily members. When asked dur ing the remova l hear ing w hy he had f ailed to do so, Sao replied that he “didn’t know that would help.” J.A. at 159 (Removal Hr’g Tr. at 60). The I J rea sonably found that Sao’s e x planation12

was “ not cre dible, espec ially g iven t he fact t hat he was repre sented by an ex perie nced attorney .” J.A. at 16 (I J Dec . at 9). We a ls o believe that the I J rea sonably expected Sao to cor

roborate his testimony

by providing some documentation of his applications for asylum in Seneg al. Sao testified that he submitted an asylum application in Seneg al three times but never r ece ived a r esponse. Althoug h we do not agr ee wi th t he I J tha t it

is r e a so na

ble to e xpe c t th a t Sa o s ho uld have ke pt a

c opy of th e a

pp lic a tio n w ith him as he made his way

to the United States, Sao has fa m i l y m ember s still living in Seneg al who coul d at least have attempted to obtain c opies of Sao’s a sy lum recor ds on Sao’s beha lf. Sao
e vid e ntl y ma de no e ff

or t to o bta in t

his do c ume ntatio n a

nd of fe re d n o e xplanatio n f

or his fa ilure to do so. I nstead, he simply

testified that he ke pt no copies of the applications. For these re asons, we cannot sa y that the I J was compelled to conclude that Sao’s applications for asylum in S eneg al wer e unavailable
. I n addition to finding that Sao re asonably could have provided such corr oborating evidenc e, the I J found inconsistencie s in the limi ted d o cu m en t ar y evidenc e that Sao did put in the rec ord. First, the I J found an inc onsistency in S ao’s submi ssion of a school identification card that was issued in 1999. Sao te stified that he obtained this ca rd fr om an unidentified “ family member w ho left fr om the village ” and “ br[ought] that to us.” J.A. at 169 (Removal Hr’g Tr. at 70). The I J found an inconsistency

beca use Sao had a lso testified that a fr iend o f h i s fa ther’s ha d possession of the fa mil y ’s ide nti fi c a tio n c ard s in 20 00 wh e n s old ie rs c a me to t he Sa os ’ h ou se and

de mand e d th e ir identification ca

rds. Howe ver, nothing i n the re cord indicates whethe r Sao’s school identific ation
ca rdwa s am o n g t h e i d en t i fi ca t i o nca rd s t h at S ao ’s fa t h er h adgi v en t o h i s fr i en d

fo r s af ek ee p i n g. Even if it had be en among those car ds, it is possible that the family member subse quently

obtained13

the ca rd fr om Sao’s fathe r’s fr iend and then bro u gh t i t t o t he Saos in Seneg al. Acc ording ly , we be lie ve that th e re c or d d oe s n ot s up po rt the I J’s f ind ingof an in c on sis te nc y

a s to thi s d oc ume nt. We believe, howe ver, that i t was reasona ble for the I J to discount the sole documentar y evi den ce o ff

e re d b y Sa o d ir e c tly

re le va nt t o h is c la im o f p e rs e c uti on —a me dic a l c e rt if

ic a te purporting to document Sao’s fifte en-da y stay in a Senega lese hospital following his force d expuls ion from Mauritania
. The Eng lish translation of this document, dated Nove mber 12, 2000, states that Sao’s injuries “r equire d t h at t h e p at ient be monitored in the hospital for f ifteen ( 15)
a dd iti on a l da

y s in or de r t o tre a t poss ibl e c omp lic a tio ns .” J.A. a t 18 7 ( Me dic a l Ce rt if ic a te , E ng lis h Tr ans la tio n) . N oti ngthat th e c e rt if ic a te wa s “ date d th e same da y that Sa o e ntered the ho sp ita l, November

12, 2000,” and “ [y ]et it repor ts that Sao stay ed there 15 day s,” t he I J rea soned t hat “if the medical c ertifica

te wer e ac curate and r eliable, medic al staff could not have know n how long Sao
wo uld be ho sp ita lize d a

nd a lr e a dy fi xed his dis c ha

rg e date .” J.A. a t 17 (I J De c . at 10 ). Gi ve n th is discrepa ncy , we cannot sa

y that the evidenc e compe ls a conc lusion contrary to the I J ’s finding that this medical ce rtificate was unre liable. Separa tely , Sao co n t en d s t h at i nm ak i n g t h e a d v er s e c re d i b i l i t y fi n d i n g, t h e IJ s o m eh o w fa iled t o t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o nt h e f a c t t h a t S a o w a s t e s t i f

y i n g t h r o u g h ani n t e r

p r e t e r an d t h a tt h e IJ appea red via videoconf

ere nce. We f

irst note that Sao never

complained at the hear ing that he was prejudice d by

the I J ’s appe ara

nce by videoconf

ere nce or by the fa ct that he testifi ed throug h a translator; he raised this argument for the first time in his appea l to the B I A. The B I A re jected Sao’ s arguments, expl aini n g t h at Sao had “f ailed to ar

ticulate, in any

meaning ful way , what par ticular ‘obstacle s [were] cre ated by tele-vide o and the use of a tra nslator’ or how the vi deo conf ere ncing and the use of the Fulani tra

nslator would have adequately explained” the inconsi s t en cy by omission14

b e t w e e nh i s s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e a s y l u m o f f i c e r an d h i s t e s t i m o n y a t h i s r e m o v a l h e ar i n g . J
. A
. a t6 ( B IA Dec . at 1). We ag ree with the BIA that Sao has fa iled to identify any speci fi c p ro b l ems he encounte red dur ing his remova l he aring beca use of the fac t that the I J appea red by videoconf

ere nce or bec ause of the Fulani translator. As the B I A noted, De partment of Justice regulations allow an immigration judge to “ conduct he aring s throug h video co n fe re n ce to the same extent as he or she may conduct he aring s in person.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(c) . As to Sao’s vague conte ntion that he fac ed “obstac les” be cause he testified throug h an interpr eter , Sao has not alleg ed that the tra nslation at the hear ing w as inade quate, much le ss shown how spec ific inconsistencie s identified by the I J wer e attributable to er

rors in translation. See G ishta v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 972, 979 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Acc ording ly , Sao’s contention that the I J should ha ve considere d the eff

ects of holding the hea

ring via vid e oc on fe re nc e and

wi th t he he lp o f a

tr ans la tor

pr ov ide s n o b asi s for r e ve rs ingthe a dv e rs e
cr ed i b i l i t y

fi n d i n g. I n sum, be cause the rec ord does not c ompel a finding that Sao is c redible and bec ause Sao failed to c ome forw ard w ith reasona bly available evidenc e to corr oborate his claim, he has not met his burden to prove elig ibilit y for a sy lum. Be cause Sao failed to e stablish e ligibility for a sy lum, he
nece ssarily cannot meet the “more string ent standar d” for withholding of r emoval. Se e Liti , 411 F.3d at 641 (int erna l quotation marks omitted). Be cause no cre dible evidenc e in the re cord de monstrates th a t Sa o “ ‘ mo r e li k e ly th an n o t
. . . w o u ld b e to rtu r e d if r e mo v e d to” Mauritania, id. (q u o t i n g 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2)) , Sao also ca nnot obtain relief unde r CAT.15

B. N e w Evide nc e of C ount r y C ondi ti ons in M aur it ani a Sao also argues that we should remand this ca se base d u p o n new e vidence of country conditions in Mauritania. Howe ver, w e lack statutory authority

to remand f

or the takingof
a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e . 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2( a )( 1) ( “J ud ici al revi e w o f a fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l . . . is g overne d o n ly

by chapte r 158 of Title 28, e x cept . . . that the c ourt may not order the taking of
a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e un de r s e c tio n 2 34 7( c ) o f T itl e 28 .” ); se e als o Picke ring v. Gonzales , 465 F.3d 263, 270-71 (6th Cir. 2006). As the gover nment points out in its brief, “ [i ]f Sao wishes to present
a new asylum claim based on ne w evidenc e, then his prope r re course is to file a motion to reopen with the [BI A].” Gov’t B r. at 19. Althoug h a motion to reopen must g ener ally be filed no later than ninety day s after a fina l administrative order of re moval, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (2), that time limi tation does not apply

to a motion to reopen a

n asylum a

pplication “base d on chang ed cir cumstance s arising in the country

of nationality

or in the country to which deportation has been order ed, if such e vidence is material and w as not ava ilable and c ould not have bee n discovere d or prese nted at the pre vious hear ing,” id. § 1003.2(c) (3)( ii). S e e B a r ry v. M

ukasey , 524 F.3d 721, 723 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (“The 9 0

- d ay p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a m o t i o nt o r e o p e ni s s u

b j e c tt o n ar

r o w e x c e p t i o n s : ( 1 ) w h e r e t h e B IA
re op e ns the pr oc e e din g s su a s po nte ; (2) wh er e t h e p arties ag ree to reope n the proc eeding s; (3) chang ed cir cumstance s in th e countr y of nationality

of which the re is new , materia l evidence that
c ou ld n ot h a ve be e n d isc ov e re d o r pr e se nte d at the tim e of the or ig ina l pr oc e e din g ; and (4 ) c e rt a in in a bs e nti a decisions.” ( internal quotation marks omitted))
. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY the petition for re view.