The Honor able L ouis F. Obe rdorf er, United States District Court for the District of * Columbi a, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0138n.06 F iled: F ebruary 20, 2007 No. 05-4470 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MAMADOU F AL L , Petitioner,
v. AL B ERT O G ON Z AL ES, Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be fore : DAUGHT REY and ROGERS, Circuit J udg es; OB ERDORFER, District Judge. *
OB ERDORFER, District Judge. Mamadou F all petitions for revie w of the O ctober 21, 2005, order

of the B oard of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls ( B I A) , a ff ir min gthe I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s (I J’s) June 7, 20 05 , d e nia l of his application for

asylum, withholdi ngof re moval, and re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT). We assume f

amiliarity with the case ’s proc edura l history and bac kg round. Fa ll is a fifty -two y ear -old native of Ma uritania a nd a member

of the F ulani ethnic g roup. His wife a

nd children pr esently

live in Seneg al. He se nds them financia l support derived f rom his wag es as a

restaur ant cook in Columbus, Ohio.-2-

Fa ll testified that he enter ed the U.S. usinganother person’ s passport in Marc h 1999. A de c a de e arl ie r, the g ov e rnme nt o f M a ur ita nia a pp are ntl y ha d d e ta ine d h im a

nd c on fi sc ate d a ll h is land bec ause it believe d, incorre ctly , that Fa ll belonge d to an anti-g overnme nt politi cal org anization advocatingon behalf of his ethnic g roup, blac k Fulani. F all claims that afte r ten
months of

br uta l inte rr og atio n, the g ov e rnme nt r e le a se d h im t o b e fo rc ibl y de po rt e d to Se ne g a l, wher e he w as re united with his wife and f amily . In Seneg al, the F alls had two other c hildren and
s tr u g g l e d e c o n o m i c a l l y. In 1996, Fa ll was in the employ of a c onstruction worke r in Seneg al, throug h whom he
me t so me on e wh o w a s w ill ingto s e ll h im a Se ne g a le se pa ssp or

t f or F a ll’ s p e rs on a l us e . So F a ll rente d a passpor

t and with it traveled to the U .S., ill eg ally enter ing the country , he say s, in March 1999. He ultimately

settled in Columbus , Ohio, to work as a restaur ant cook. In August 1999, Fall applied f or asylum, and the forme r I NS commence d remova l proce eding s. Fa ll concede d remova bility in October

2002, but continued to seek a sylum relief. On June 7, 20 04 , F a ll a

pp e are d b e fo re the I J in A rl ing ton , V ir g ini a , b y vid e o c on fe re nc e wi th
c o un s e l w h o at t e mp t e d

un s u c c e s s f

u l l y t o qu a s hth e v i d e o h e a

r i n g . F o l l o w i n gth e h e ar i n g , th e IJ denied F all’s application for asylum, withholdi ngof re moval, and re lief under the CAT, and order ed him remove d to Mauritania. The BIA af firmed that de cision, adopting the I J ’s d et erm i n at i o n s wh i l e a d d i n g th ati td i d n o tfi n d an y v i o l at i o no f du e p ro ce s s atFa l l ’s h ea ri n g. I. As ylu m Petitioner asserts va

rious claims for r elief f

rom the B I A dec ision. W e foc us first on whether his asylum application was timely filed. See 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (a )( 2) (B ). Re lyinglarg e ly
on a cr edibility

deter mination, the I J found that petitioner ha d failed to “ establish, by clea r and-3-

convincingevidenc e, that he e ntere d the United States in the manne r that he . . . te stified”— i.e. , pe tit ion e r h a d n ot s ho wn

that he ha d “ fi le d [hi s a sylum a pp lic atio n] w ith in o ne y e ar [o f t he date of his entry] by

clea r and c onvincingevidenc e.” JA 53. The B I A af firmed this finding . J A 2. This court has no jurisdiction to revie w the I J ’s deter mination that petitioner’s asylum
a pp lic atio n w a s unti me ly . 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( a )( 3) ; se e Cas te lla no -C ha c on v . I NS , 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir. 2003). Petitioner’s sole ar g ument reg ardingtimeliness is t hat the I J ’s deter mination that his “application was untimely is not supported by

substantial evidence .” Pet. B r. at 18 (empha sis removed). E ntertainingsuch an a rgument would involve impermissible judicial revie w of a

purely fac tual deter

mination. See 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (a )( 3) ; Castellano-Chacon , 341 F.3d 543- 44; Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 434 F.3d 144, 153- 54 (2d Cir. 2006). Mo re ov e r, be c a

us e pe tit ion e r r a ise s n o q

ue sti on s o f l aw o r c on sti tut ion a l c la ims , h e c ann ot o bta in judicial revie w under

§ 1252(a) (2)( D), whic h only permits revie w of “ constitutional claims or questions of law.” See id. ; Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 748 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Acc ording ly , we dismiss his petiti on for r eview of the denial of

his asylum application. II. Withhol din g of Rem oval and Relief Under the CAT Petitioner’s second a

nd third claims seek w ithholding of re moval and re lief under the CA T. Th e y

are no t su

bje c t to the same tim e lin e ss c on sid e ra tio ns a s a sylum

a pp lic atio ns , s o th is court ha s jurisdiction over those cla ims. See8 U .S. C. § 12 31 (b )( 3) (A ); Castellano-Chacon , 341 F.3d at 545-53 (re viewingwithholding of r emoval and CAT r equests despite la ck of jurisdiction to reviewtimeliness of asylum application). To qualify

for withholdingof re moval, petitioner must establish that his “life or fr eedom
wo uld be thr e ate ne d in

[the ] co un tr

y [of re mov a l]” on

the ba sis of

on e of fi ve statut or

y g ro un ds ,-4-

“ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U. S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )( A) ; see8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( b) . I f p e tit ion e r e sta bli sh e s th at he “ su ff

e re d p a st perse cution” on the ba sis of one such statutory g round, elig ibilit y

for withholdingis presumed, subject to rebuttal. Id . In this reg ard pe titioner must provide evidenc e showinga “c lear probability ” that he w ould be subject to per secution, mea ning that “it is more likely than not that the alien would be subject to perse cution.” Se e IN S v . S te v ic , 4 67 U. S. 4 07 , 4 24 (1 98 4) ; Mullai
v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F.3d 635, 639 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Our re view of a

n I J ’s deter

mination that petitioner has not proved pe rsec ution by a cle ar pr ob a bil ity is n e c e ssa

ri ly de fe re nti a l. We c ann ot d ist ur b th at f ind ing“ un le ss anyre a so na ble adjudicator

would be compe lled

to con clu de t o t he co nt rary .” 8 U.S .C . § 12 52 (b) (4) (B) (e mph a se s a dd e d) ; see Be rri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 395 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Where, as he re, the BIA dec ision affirmingthe I J ’s dec ision adopts the I J ’s re asoningand fa ctual finding s, we may revie w the dec ision of the I J direc tly , as modified (if at all) by the B I A. Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 282- 83 (6th Cir. 2005). Her e, the I J found that petitioner ha d not proved by a cle ar pr obability

that he wa s “subjec ted to the conditions to which he testified.” J A 54. The I J observe d that petitioner had
sever al times testified inconsistently about key

aspec ts of his claim for withholding . Petitioner initially testified that he ha d been a rre sted and de tained for

over te n months by

the g overnme nt of Mauritania while beingbeate n repe atedly . When later a sked about the same eve nt, petitioner said that he ha d been de ported on the same day he wa s arr ested. JA 103-04. Petiti oner attempted to e xpla in t

his dis c re pa

nc y awa y by statin gthat he ha d n ot u

nd e rs too d th e qu e sti on

and tho ug ht i t
was a sking a

bout the timing of his wife ’s depor tation. Howeve r, just a fe w moments ear lier he-5-

ha d s tate d th at he and

his wi fe c ro sse d th e bo rd e r t o Se ne g a l on dif fe re nt d ate s, c le arl y distinguishing be tween the dates of his a nd his wife’s c rossing
. Id. Th e I J thus fo un d it “ highly likely that [petit ioner] was neve r deta ined.” JA 54-55. This finding is not so unrea sonable that
we a re compe lled

to find otherwise. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B)
. In a dd iti on

to t he se and oth e r i nc on sis te nc ie s in

pe tit ion e r’ s te sti mony , th e I J note d th at in the int e rv e nin gy e ars the re we re c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion s in

Ma ur ita nia . T he State Depa rtment’s Country

Report, for instanc e, showe d that, since the pe riod of petitioner’ s forc ed deportation, thousands of expelled Mauritanians of pe rsec uted ethnic groups, including pe tit ion e r’ s e thn ic g ro up , h a d r e tur ne d to Ma

ur ita nia . JA 1 07 , 3 91 ; see Country Re ports on Hu ma n R igh ts Pra c tic es- 20 02 , M au rit an ia , U
. S
. D e p art m e n to f S t at e , B ur e a

uo f D e m o c r a c y, Human Ri g hts , a

nd L a bo r ( Mar. 31 , 2 00 3) . M or e ov e r, the Ma ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt n ow“ is i n part c omprised of individuals who ar e of the same e thnic g roup as is [petitioner],” severa l of whom had bee n elec ted to or obtained hig h g overnme ntal office s. J A 57, 107. Such finding s by the I J , based upon substantial e vidence in the rec ord, we re w ell-re asoned a nd under our defe rential standa

rd of r eview should not be ove rturned. We uphold, therefor e, the I J ’s deter mination that petitioner “fa iled to sustain his burden of proof and per suasion” as to withholding of re moval. Since petitioner ba ses his CAT claim on the same g ro un ds a s h is r e qu e st f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l, p e tit ion e r a lso fa ils to d e mon str ate that upon return to Ma

uritania, it is more likely

than not he would be tor tured. Be rri , 468 F.3d at 39 8. F or the same re a so ns , w e fu

rt he r u ph old the I J’s d e te rm inatio n th at pe tit ion e r f a ile d to demonstrate grounds for r elief unde r the CAT. III . Due P r oc e ss-6-

F ina lly , p e tit ion e r c la ims that he wa s d e pr ive d o f p ro c e dura l du e pr oc e ss b e c a us e his p r o c e e d in g s w e r e c o n d

u c te d b y v id e o an d

b e c a u s e o f h is inte r p r e te r ’ s a ll e g e d

in c o mp e te n c e . We disag ree . Petitioner’s able c ounsel points out several instanc es whe re c erta in statements wer e repe ated f or the be nefit of pe titioner’s interpre ter or pe titioner himself, as well as instanc es whe re pronunciations were a

n issue. Howeve r, none of these e vents deprive d petitioner of the proce dural due proce ss require d by the Constitut ion. The situation is unli ke that of Amadou v. IN S , 2 26 F .3 d 7 24 (6 th C ir . 2 00 0) . T he re , th e int e rp re te r a nd the pe tit ion e r s po ke e nti re ly differ ent dialec ts, and there wer e seve ral times duringthe testimony when pr oblems with the dialects’ voc abular

y , semantics, and c ohere nce dir ectly contributed to the interpr eter ’s conf usion. Id. at 725-27. He re, by

contra st, the interpre ter only asked that petitioner repe at discre te par ts of his testimony

and slow down to allow him to interpre t in moderated a mounts. At no pointdoes the re cord indicate that the interpr eter was inca pable of interpre ting the la

ng uag e petitioner spoke or that he spoke a diffe rent diale ct. Moreove r, whe re the re w as any confusion vis-a- vis the int e rp re te r, it c on c e rn e d te sti mony that w a s n ot c ri tic a l or

e ve n r e le va

nt t o th e I J’s u lti mate deter mination. Cf. id. at 727 (“ The re cord indicates that the interpr eter ’s fa ulty translation direc tly prejudice d [t he petitioner]”). As for the eff

ect of video conf

ere ncingthe hea

ring , petitioner’s c ounsel only states conclusorily

that such medium had a

detrimental e ffe ct on petitioner’s a bility to be fully

and fairly hear d. Pet. Br. at 12-13. We rejec t the argument; the rec ord provides no indication petitioner wa s prejudice d by the video conf

ere ncing
. Se e Ru su v . I

NS , 2 96 F .3 d 3 16 , 3 24 (4 th Cir. 2002). * * *-7-

We have c onsidered pe titioner’s rema ining a rguments and find them to be without merit. For the fore g oing r easons, the pe tition for reviewis dismi ssed insofar as conc erns pe titioner’s application for

asylum, and in all other re spects it is denied.