O n February4, 2005, A l bert o R . G onzal es beca m e the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney * G ener al . I n acc or dance w i th R ul e 43( c) ( 2) of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, M r . G onzal es i s s ubs t i tut ed forJ ohn A s hcr oftas the R es pondenti n thi s act i on. T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of ** law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ar c h 16, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT M AM ADOU A M ADOU B A, P eti ti o n er, v. N o. 04- 9579 ALB ERTO R. GO NZA LES , * R e sp o n d e n t. ( D . C . N o. A 96- 104- 796) ( P e t i t i o n f

o rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e B R I S C O E , M c W I L L I A M S , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honorthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al ar gum ent . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t.-2-

Pet i t i onerM amadou A m adou B a s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s ued bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) , w hi ch af fi r m ed a de ci s i on byan i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) deny i ng B a’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) , gr antB a’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew , vaca t e the fi nal or derof rem ov al , and rem and for further proceedings. I. Factualbackgr ound B a w a s b o rn o n Ju n e 1 , 1 9 6 0 , in A lyb a y d a , M a u ritan ia, a sm a ll v ill a g e lo c a ted in the Senega l R i verV al l eyar ea of s outhern M aur i t ani a ( nearthe bor derof M aur i t ani a and Senegal i n nor theas t ern A fr i ca) . A . R . at402. T he popul at i on of M aur i t ani a i s di vi ded in to th re e d istin c t ca teg o rie s: (1 ) th e M o o rs, a lso k n o w n a s th e B e y d a n e s, w h o a re w h ite per s ons of A r ab- B erberdes centw ho have rul ed M aur i t ani a s i nce appr oxi m at el y1960; ( 2) the bl ack e thni c gr oups of H al pul aar , Soni nke, W ol of, and B ambar a; and ( 3) the H ar at i nes , al s o know n as the bl ack M oor s , form erbl ack s l aves w ho r emai n pol i t i cal l yand c u ltu ra llytied to th e ir f o rm e r m a ste rs. Id . at 3 9 8 . B a is a m e m b e r o f th e H a lp u laa r e th n ic gr oup. B a w as r ai s ed on a s m al l farm thatw as ow ned byhi s par ent s . I d. at402. A s an adul t , B a fa r m ed hi s par ent s ’ l and and r ai s ed ca t t l e w i th hi s par ent s and w i fe. I d. I n D ece m ber1984, L i eut enantC ol onel M aaoui y a O ul d Si d’ A hm ed Tay a s ei zed pow eri n a bl oodl es s coup and be came Pr es i dentof M aur i t ani a. I d. at280. T he per s ecut i on of bl ack e thni c gr oups es cal at ed fol l ow i ng the coup. I d. B egi nni ng i n 1989, t ens of thous ands of bl ack M aur i t ani ans w er e for ci bl yexpel l ed and a n undecl ar ed-3-

m i l i t aryoccupa t i on of the Senega l R i verV al l eyoccurr ed. I d. at279. I n turn, l and ow ned bythe expe l l ed bl ack M aur i t ani ans w as t aken ove rbyw hi t e M oor s , and the names of m a n yo f th e v illa g e s lo c a te d in th e S e n e g a l R iv e r V a lle yw e re c h a n g e d . Id . a t 3 1 2 . A ppr oxi m at el y75, 000 bl ack M aur i t ani ans w er e expe l l ed betw een 1989 a nd 1991. I d. at 400. B a w a s a m o n g th a t g ro u p . O n e m o rn in g in 1 9 8 9 , thr e e w h ite s o ld ier s c a m e to B a ’s h o u s e , to ld B a h e w a s n o t M a u ri ta n ia n , a n d in s tru c te d h im to le a v e . Id . a t 4 0 3 . W hen B a r efus ed t o l eave , the s ol di er s s hotone of hi s dogs and t ol d hi m thati f he di d not l i s t en t o them he w oul d be s hott oo. I d. T he s ol di er s , aft erhi t t i ng hi m , t ook hi m t o a m i l i t arycam p in B ang , M auri t ania, w here he w as pl aced in a sm al l cel l and , att i m es, beat en w i th bel t s and ki cked. I d. at140- 41. B a w as s ubs equent l yr emoved fr om the m i l i t arycamp and for ced t o cr os s the r i veri nt o Senegal . I d. at143. T her e, B a w as p la c e d in a re f

u g e e c a m p , w h e re h e w a s la te r j o in e d b yh is w if e a n d c h ild re n . Id . a t 1 4 4 . B a r emai ned i n t hatcamp w i th hi s fami l yunt i l the s um m erof 2002. I d. at145. D u rin g th e in ter v e n in g y e a rs, L ieu ten a n t C o lo n e l T a y a re m a in e d in p o w e r in M aur i t ani a. I n J une 1993, the governm entof M aur i t ani a dec l ar ed an a m nes ty“cove r i ng al l cr i m es comm i t t ed bythe arm ed for ces and s ecur i tyfor ces betw een A pr i l 1989 and A pr i l 1992. ” I d. at282. I n t he l at e 1990’ s , the M aur i t ani an governm entoper at ed a l and r eform pr ogr am, “os t ens i bl yt o pr ovi de l and t o r eturnees and otherl andl es s fami l i es . . . . ” I d. at320. T he r es ul t s of thi s pr ogr am w er e appa r ent l ym i xed. I d. “Som e r eturnees m a n a g e d to re g a in th e ir p re v io u s la n d ; so m e re c e iv e d n e w p ro p e rty ; o th e rs f a iled to-4-

r ece i ve compens at i on of anyki nd fr om l ocal author i t i es . ” I d. “R eturnees have [ a lleg e d ly ] c o m p lain e d th a t g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls h a v e re g u lar lyd e n ied c iti z e n sh ip to re tu rn e e s .” Id . I n A ugus tof 2002, B a, us i ng a pas s por tbear i ng the name and phot o of a f r i end of hi s fr om Senegal , fl ew fr om Senegal t o N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. I d. at147. A ft erarr i vi ng in N e w Y o rk , B a sta y e d f o r f iv e d a y s in a B ro o k lyn a p a rtm e n t w ith so m e o th e r F u lan isp ea k ing p eo p le. Id. at 14 8 -49 . H e the n tr av eled b yb u s to S il v ertho rne , C o lorad o , w h ere he j oi ned a gr oup of Ful ani - s peaki ng peopl e w ho l i ved ther e. I d. at149- 50. P r ocedur albackgr ound O n N ovember22, 2002, B a fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um . O n J anuary9, 2003, the g ov ernm ent com m enced rem ov al proceed i ng s agai nstB a. T he IJ as si gn ed to the case conduct ed hea r i ngs on the mat t eron February11, M ar ch 3, and J une 16, 2003. A tthe concl us i on of the fi nal hear i ng, the I J r ender ed an or al deci s i on deny i ng B a’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um and or der i ng hi m r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es t o M aur i t ani a or , i n the a ltern a tiv e , to S e n e g a l. B a fi l ed a not i ce of

appea l fr om the I J ’ s deci s i on on J ul y16, 2003. O n J ul y30, 2 0 0 4 , th e B IA a f

f ir m e d , w ith o u t o p in io n , th e d e c is io n o f th e IJ p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (e)(4) (2 0 0 3 ). B a f il ed a m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n o n A u g u st 27 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e B IA d e n ied th a t m o tio n o n O c to b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . B a h a s s in c e f iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew w ith th is c o u rt.-5- II. Standar d of

r evi ew B ec au se th e B IA issue d a p er c u ri am d ec isi o n af firm ing , w ith o u t op inion , the IJ’s deci s i on pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) , w e r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on as i f i tw er e the B IA ’s . W i ransane v. A shcroft , 36 6 F . 3d 88 9, 89 7 (10th C i r. 20 04 ). “T he IJ’ s adverse as y l um deci s i on m us tbe uphel d i f s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve ev iden ce o n the re co rd a s a w h o le. ” Id . (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h e IJ’s

“ f in d in g s o f

f a c t ar e c o n c lu siv e u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary. . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ).

Standar ds f

orgr ant i ng appl i cat i on f oras yl um “A r eques tforas y l um i nvol ves a tw o- s t ep pr oces s . ” C hai b v. A s hcr oft , 397 F. 3d 12 73 , 12 77 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). “T he ap pli cant m ustfi rs t s how thathe i s el i gi bl e foras y l um byes t abl i s hi ng thathe i s a r efuge e. ” I d. “R efuge e statu s is st atuto ri lyd ef

ined as ‘a n yp erso n w h o is ou tsi d e a n yco u n tryo f su ch p erso n ’s n a tio n a lity. . . w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to , an d is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to a v a il h im self o r he rself o f th e p rotec ti o n o f, th at co u n tryb ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f ra c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n .’” Id . (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A )) . R efuge e s t atus can be es t abl i s hed i n thr ee di ffe r entw ay s : ( 1) the appl i cantcan s how t hat he has a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on; ( 2) the appl i cantcan de m ons tr at e thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on s uffi ci entt o gi ve r i s e t o a pr es um pt i on of futur e per s ecut i on; or-6-

( 3) the appl i cantcan e s t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on s o s ever e thati tdemonstr at es compel l i ng re a so n s f o r b e in g u n w ill in g to re tu rn . Y u k v . A sh c ro f t, 35 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 3 2 -3 3 (1 0 th C i r . 2004) . I f the appl i cantpr oves r efuge e s t atus , he mustthen per s uade the A t t orney Ge n e r a l t o e x e r c i s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n a n d g r a n tr e l i e f. Ch a i b , 3 9 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 7 7 ; s e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(A ). I J’s adver

s e cr edi bi l i t

y deter m i nat i on B efor e addr es s i ng B a’ s chal l enges t o the I J ’ s deci s i on, w e mustfi r s taddr es s an iss u e ra ise d b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l (A G ) in h is a p p e llate re sp o n se b rie f. A c c o rd in g to th e AG, Ba h a s r e n d e r e d h i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w m o o tb yf

a i l i n g t o c h a l l e n g e wh a tth e AG char act er i zes as “the i ndepende nt l ydi s pos i t i ve adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng” made byt he IJ. A p lee . B r. at i. B a , in h is re p lyb rie f , d e n ies th a t th e IJ m a d e a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty f i n d i n g a g a i n s th i m. D ur i ng the cour s e of hi s or al rul i ng, the I J m ade the fol l ow i ng comm ent s r egar di ng B a ’ s t e s t i m o n y: I n as s es s i ng the r es pondent ’ s t es t i m ony , I not e thats om e of the r es pondent ’ s t es t i m onydoes nots eem t o be pl aus i bl e. T he r es pondent t es t i fi ed thathe w as aw ar e of w hatw as happeni ng i n hi s hom e vi l l age, al though he di d notappea rt o have a nyw ayof know i ng w hatw as happeni ng i n hi s hom e vi l l age. H e i ndi cat ed thathe w as aw ar e of one per s on w ho had r eturned fr om the r efuge e ca m p i n M aur i t ani a. H e t es t i fi ed thatthe fa t e of thatper s on w as l earned bec aus e of pe opl e s t andi ng on one s i de of the Senega l R i verl ooki ng overt o the others i de of the Senega l R iv e r. I d o f

e e l th a t th is re n d itio n o f e v e n ts is f

a r- f e tc h e d a n d im p la u s ib le . It d o e s in d ica te th a t th e re sp o n d e n t is w ill in g to e m b e lli sh h is te stim o n yin o rde r t o m ak e itap p ea r stron g er. T he C our tw oul d not e thatthe r es pondent ’ s t es t i m onyi s thathe l eft-7-

M a u ri ta n ia 1 4 y e a rs a g o a n d h e ’s b e e n liv in g in S e n e g a l s in c e th a t tim e . T he r es pondentt es t i fi ed thathe had notl i ved i n the capi t al of D akarforany s i gni fi cantl ength of t i m e. H ow ever , the r es pondent ’ s t es t i m ony [contr adi ct s ] the r es pondent ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on [w hi ch s t at es ] thathe had l i ved i n D akarfr om A ugus tof 2000 unt i l A ugus tof 2002. T hi s w oul d be the l as ty earthatthe r es pondentw as l i vi ng i n Senegal . T he C our tbel i eves that this i s a sig n ifi ca n t l en g th o f ti m e a n d that the re sp o n d en t’ s in c o n sis ten c ies c a st s o m e d o u b t o n w h e re th e re sp o n d e n t w a s a c tu a lly l i vi ng dur i ng the pas t14 y ear s . T he C our tw oul d not e thatthe r es pondent p re s e n te d a S e n e g a l p a s s p o rt to S e n e g a l a u th o ri tie s u p o n le a v in g S e n e g a l. I ts eems unl i kel ythatthe Senega l author i t i es w oul d have a l l ow ed s om eone t o l eave thei rcountr ypr es ent i ng a fa l s e pas s por t . L i kew i s e the r es pondent in d ica ted th a t u p o n e n tryto K e n n e d yA irp o rt o n A u g u st 8 , 2 0 0 2 h is p a s s p o rt w a s a c c e p te d a s a u th e n tic b yth e im m ig ra tio n a u th o ri tie s th e re . T h e a c c e p tan c e o f

th is p a ss p o rt b ye x a m in in g a u th o rities in S e n e g a l as w e ll a s N e w Y o rk C ityw o u ld se e m to in d ica te th a t th e re sp o n d e n t w a s a c tu a lly tr a v e l i n g o n a v a l i d p a s s p o r twh i c h wa s i s s u e d t o h i m. Th i s i s s o me e v id e n c e th a t th e re sp o n d e n t is n o t f ro m M a u ritan ia a s h e in d ica ted , b u t is actual l yfr om Senegal . T he C our tw oul d al s o not e thatthe r es pondenthas s i gni fi cantr es i dence i n Senegal , has chi l dr en l i vi ng i n Senegal , and s o the C o u rth as so m e q u esti o n s ab o u t th e c red ibil ityo f th e re sp o n d en t’ s sta tem e n ts re g a rd in g h is n a tio n a lity . T h e re sp o n d e n t p re se n ted d o c u m e n ts to es tablish h is na ti o n ali ty . H o w ev er, atleast on e o f th e d o cu m en ts ap p ea rs to h a v e so m e a ltera tio n o n it. In a n a ttem p t to g e t an e x p e rt o p in io n a s to the val i di tyof the document , the documentw as s ubm i t t ed t o the for ens i cs d o c u m e n ts la b f

o r [ th e ] D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e lan d S e c u rity , b u t n o re su lt w a s o b tain e d , ap p a re n tlyb e c a u se o f th e c ru sh o f

w o rk th a t th a t f

a c ili tyis n o w u n d e r. I h a v e n o w a yo f k n o w in g w h e th e r th e d o c u m e n ts a re a u th e n tic ornotauthent i c. A s I i ndi cat ed, ther e does appea rt o be an a l t er at i on on one of them , and com bined w i th the ot her em bell i shm ents and i nco nsi st encies , the C ou rti s not i ncli ned t o g rantcon cl usi ve w ei gh tt o those do cum ents . A . R . at97- 99. A lth o u g h w e a g ree that thes e c o m m en ts r ef lect co n ce rn o n the p art of the IJ r egar di ng the truthful nes s of s om e of Ba’ s t es t i m ony , w e ul t i m at el yconcl ude thatthe com m ents are not hing m ore than dict a. M ore speci fi cal l y , the IJ m ade n o ex press fi ndi ngs r egar di ng B a’ s cr edi bi l i tyornat i onal i ty , and i ns t ead pr es um ed thatB a w asT he I J di d s t at e thatB a “ha [d] nots how n thathe me[t ] the def i ni t i on of r efuge e. ” 1 A pp. at101. I ti s uncl ear , how ever , w hetherthe I J bas ed thi s det erm i nat i on on a fi ndi ng thatB a w as notout s i de the countr yof hi s nat i onal i ty( i . e. , thatB a w as Senegal es e r ather th a n M a u ritan ian ), o r o n a f in d in g th a t B a w a s u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to M aur i t ani a. -8- M aur i t ani an. I n turn, the I J bas ed hi s r ej ect i on of B a’ s appl i cat i on on the gr ounds that ther e had be en a s i gni fi cantchange i n M aur i t ani a’ s countrycondi t i ons s i nce 1989, w hen B a w a s a lle g e d ly f

o rc e d o u t o f

th e c o u n tr y . Id . a t 9 9 .

1 Ou rc o n c l u s i o n i s b o l s t e r e d b yth e f o l l o wi n g s t a t e me n t s ma d e b yth e I J t o Ba im m e d iate lyf

o llo w in g th e o ra l ru lin g , in th e c o u rse o f e x p lain in g to B a h is rig h t to a p p e a l:O kay , now the mai n r eas on I deni ed y ourappl i cat i on i s thatm anyof the paper s I have i ndi cat e thatthe s i tuat i on i n M aur i t ani a has change d s i nce 19 89 a nd a l otof

pe op l e s i mi l a rt o y ou ha ve go ne ba c k t o M a ur i t a ni a . So even though t he s i tuat i on i s noti deal , i tw as m yopi ni on thaty ou coul d go back t o M aur i t ani a w i thoutfea r i ng thaty ou’ d be per s ecut ed. I d. at197. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectthe A G ’ s as s ert i on thatthi s appea l has been r ender ed moot b yB a ’s f a ilu re to c h a llen g e th e IJ’ s c o m m e n ts re g a rd in g th e p lau sib ili tyo f so m e o f h is test im o n y . S ee H artoo n i v. I N S , 2 1 F . 3 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 3 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (r em an d ing w h ere IJ ra ise d d o u b ts a b o u t ap p lica n t’s c re d ib ili tyb u t m a d e n o e x p re ss a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng) ; A gui l er a- C ot a v. U . S. I . N . S. , 914 F. 2d 1375, 1383 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ( i ndi cat i ng th a t an IJ “ m u st m a k e a [ n ] . . . e x p licit a n d d ire c t f in d in g th a t” th e a n a sy lu m a p p lica n t “is untruthful ”) ; s ee a l s o I kama- O bambi v. G onzal es , 470 F. 3d 720, 725 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( concl udi ng thatdeni al of an a ppl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval w as notw arr ant ed-9-

b ase d o n lack o f c o rrob o rati n g ev iden ce , ab sen t an e x p li citad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing ).

B a’s r ef ugee s tat us : r ebut tabl e pr es um pt i on of f ut ur e per s ecut i on W e now turn t o B a’ s chal l enges t o the I J ’ s deci s i on. I n r ej ect i ng B a’ s appl i cat i on fo r asy lum , the IJ c o n clud ed that B a f ail ed to es tablish tha t he f ell w ith in the statu tory defi ni t i on of a “ r efuge e. ” B a cont ends on appea l that , al though he es t abl i s hed he w as su b jected to p ast p erse cu ti o n , the IJ f ail ed to g ive h im the re q u isi te pre su m p ti o n o f f u ture per s ecut i on. I n addi t i on, B a cont ends the I J err ed byfai l i ng t o undert ake a n i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entof B a’ s s i tuat i on i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthatpr es um pt i on had been rebut t ed b ya fun dam ental chan ge in cou ntrycon dit i on s. W e add res s these co n tention s in o rde r. a) P as tpers ecut i on and pr es um pt i on of f ut ur e per s ecut i on I f an a s y l um appl i canthas s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on, he i s pr es um ed t o have a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( b) ( 1) . T hi s pr es um pt i on can be r ebutt ed i f a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s how s thatther e has been a fundament al change of ci r cumst ance s i n t he appl i cant ’ s countrys uch thatthe fe arof futur e per s ecut i on no l ongeri s w el l - founded. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i ) ( A ) ; W ol demeske l v. I N S, 257 F. 3d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “F e a r o f p e rse c u tio n is w e ll-fo u n d e d if it i s s u b jec tiv e ly g e n u in e a n d o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le .” N a z a ra g h a ie v . IN S , 1 0 2 F .3 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 2 (1 9 9 6 ). O bj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s i nvol ves a “r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i ty ” of s uffe r i ng per s ecut i on on re tu rn to th e c o u n tryo f

p e rse c u tio n . S e e id . “T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s u g g e ste d th a t a one i n t en cha nce maycons t i tut e a ‘ r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i ty ’ of per s ecut i on. ” I d. ( quot i ng-10-

IN S v . C ard o za -F o n sec a, 48 0 U . S . 4 2 1 , 4 3 1 (19 8 7 )). T he I J i n B a’ s cas e ci t ed t o 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( b) ( 1) atthe out s etof hi s or al rul i ng, not i ng thatw her e an appl i cant“es t abl i s hes pas tper s ecut i on, he i s pr es um ed t o have a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on unl es s a pr eponder ance of the evi dence es t abl i s hes t hat countrycondi t i ons have c hanged s i gni fi cant l y . ” A . R . at96. Fur ther , aft erdi s cus s i ng B a ’s te stim o n ya n d w h a t h e v iew e d a s s o m e o f th e f law s th e re in , the IJ s tate d : “E v e n if the C our tw er e t o acc eptthat[B a] w er e fr om M aur i t ani a and i s a Ful ani per s on w ho had s uffe r ed as he s ay s , the C our tbel i eves thatthe s i tuat i on i n M aur i t ani a has change d s i g n i f i c a n t l ys i n c e 1 9 8 9 . T h e De p a r t me n to f S t a t e d o c u me n t s th e c h a n g e s . ” I d . a t9 9 . As w e r ead thes e s t at ement s , the I J i m pl i ci t l yfound oras s um ed that( a) B a had e s t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on, ( b) hi s fea rof futur e per s ecut i on w as r el at ed t o hi s pas tper s ecut i on, ( c) h e w as e n ti tl ed to an d w as g iven the p resu m p ti o n o f a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, and ( d) the A G r ebutt ed thatpr es um pt i on bas ed upon i nform at i on cont ai ned i n document s fr om the D epart m entof St at e. See D i al l o v. G onzal es , 178 Fed. A ppx. 833, 836 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( r eac hi ng s i m i l arconcl us i on, i n cas e al s o i nvol vi ng al l eged M auri t anian r efug ee, based u po n B IA ’s ci t at i on t o 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b) (1) (i )( A )) . T hu s, w e conc l ude ther e i s no m er i tt o B a’ s as s ert i on thatthe I J fai l ed t o aff or d hi m the r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. b) R ebut talof

pr es um pt i on of f ut ur e per s ecut i on T hatl eave s , how ever , B a’ s as s ert i on thatthe I J fai l ed t o conductan i ndi vi dual i zed as s es s m entof B a’ s s i tuat i on i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe A G had r ebutt ed that-11-

p r e s u mp t i o n . I n d e t e r mi n i n g th a tth e p r e s u mp t i o n h a d b e e n r e b u t t e d , th e I J c i t e d t o two D epart m entof St at e countr yr eport s on M aur i t ani a, one fr om 2002 and the otherfr om 2001. M or e s peci fi cal l y , the I J not ed thatthe 2002 R eporti ndi cat ed thata s i gni fi cant n u m b e r o f

p e o p le s im ilarlysitu a ted to B a h a d e ith e r re tu rn e d to M a u ritan ia o r re se ttl e d in Senegal and M al i , thatthe governm entof M aur i t ani a had s t at ed s i nce 1993 thatany ci t i zens out s i de the countr ycoul d r eturn, and thatal though 15, 000 t o 20, 000 r efuge es re m a in e d in S e n e g a l, so m e o f th o se re f

u g e e s c o n tin u e d to re tu rn in sm a ll n u m b e rs to M a u ritan ia. Id . at 1 0 0 . T h e IJ f u rth e r n o ted th a t th e 2 0 0 1 R e p o rt in d ica ted th a t n e a rly hal f of the appr oxi m at el y70, 000 peopl e w ho w er e expe l l ed fr om M aur i t ani a betw een 1989 and 1991 had r eturned t o M aur i t ani a, and thats om e obs erver s es t i m at ed thatthe ac tual n u m b er o f re turn ee s ran g ed b etw ee n 4 0 , 0 0 0 an d 6 5 , 0 0 0 . Id. A lth o u g h the IJ acknow l edged thatthe governm entl eade r s hi p i n M aur i t ani a r emai ned the s ame as i tw as at th e ti m e o f B a’s e x p u lsi o n , itco n clud ed that this did n o t “ne g ate[ ] a f ind ing that there coul d have be en s i gni fi cantchange s i n countrycondi t i ons . ” I d. at101. We a g r e e wi th Ba th a tth e I J ’ s a n a l y s i s wa s f u n d a me n t a l l yf

l a we d . Al th o u g h we have i ndi cat ed that“a St at e D epart m entR eportcan c ons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on, ” Y uk, 355 F. 3d at1236, w e have “ca ut i oned thatus e of s uch o ff ici al rep o rt [s] d o es n o t sub sti tute fo r an an aly sis of the f ac ts of ea ch ap p li ca n t’ s i ndi vi dual ci r cumst ance s . U ncontr overt ed fa ct s m aybe i nappl i cabl e t o orof l i m i t ed pr obat i ve val ue i n i ndi vi dual cas es and the [I J ] m us tr emai n open t o thi s pos s i bi l i ty . ” K ra s te v v . IN S , 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).-12-

H er e, the I J s i m pl yr el i ed on gene r al s t at ement s i n the tw o countryr eport s , and conduc t ed n o i n d i v i d u a l i z e d a n a l y s i s t o d e t e r mi n e ( a ) wh e th e rth e c o n d i t i o n s i n th e r e g i o n wh e r e Ba h a iled f ro m h a d a c tu a llyc h a n g e d , (b ) h o w m a n yo f th e re f u g e e s w h o h a d re tu rn e d to M aur i t ani a had a ctual l yr eturned t o B a’ s r egi on, and ( c) how m anyof anys uch r eturnees w er e abl e t o obt ai n t he pr opertyand/ ori dent i typaper s theyhad bee n for ced t o l eave behi nd atthe t i m e of thei rexpul s i on. See D i al l o, 178 Fed. A ppx. at837 ( r eac hi ng s i m i l ar concl us i on i n cas e i nvol vi ng M aur i t ani an r efuge e, w her e the B I A had r el i ed on g en era li ze d stat em en ts i n a 2 0 0 1 co u n tryrep o rt ). M o reo v er, as in D ial lo, th e IJ

“ o v e rlo o k e d e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd c o n c e rn in g [ B a ’s] in d iv id u a l circ u m sta n c e s th a t is favo rabl e t o h i m . ” Id. F or exam ple, the 2 00 2 R epo rtst at ed that“ser i ou s [hum an ri gh t s] p rob lem s rem aine d ” in M au ri tania. A . R . at 20 7 . T h at R ep o rtfu rth er stated “[ t] h ere w ere a numberof r eport s thats om e governm entoffi ci al s m i s appr opr i at ed l and underthe l and r eform s y s t em [w hi ch w as i nt ended t o benef i texi l ed M aur i t ani ans w ho r eturned t o the c o u n try] , c o n f

i s c a t i n g th e l a n d o f

s o u th e rn e th n i c g r o u p s [ o f w h i c h B a i s a l l e g e d l y a m em b er] . . . an d d istri b u ti n g itto the iro w n frien d s an d fa m il y. . . . ” Id . at 21 1 . In addi t i on, the R eports t at ed that“[c ] ooper at i on byl ocal author i t i es addr es s i ng r es t i tut i on and ci t i zens hi p [of e xi l ed bl ack M aur i t ani ans ] var i ed gr eat l y , dependi ng on i ndi vi dual offi ci al s and the r eturnee’ s r egi on. ” I d. at214. I ndeed, the R eportnot ed that“s om e of th o se w h o re tu rn e d in 1 9 9 5 h a [ d ] n o t y e t re c e iv e d id e n tific a tio n c a rd s,” a n d a s a re su lt “coul d nottr avel fr eel y ” w i thi n t he country . I d. L as t l y , the R eports t at ed that“[a ] num berof ac count s s ugges tthats om e mem ber s of the l ong- dom i nantW hi t e M oorIn h is seco n d issue o n ap p ea l, B a c o n tend s the IJ erred in f ind ing that co u n try 2 c o n d iti o n s in M a u ritan ia h a d f u n d a m e n tallyc h a n g e d so th a t B a n o lo n g e r h a d a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. Forthe r eas ons out l i ned above , w e agr ee w i th B a. -13- comm uni ty , w hi ch tr adi t i onal l yens l aved da r kers ki nned gr oups , m aycont i nue t o expec t o r de sir e se rvitu d e o n the p art of m em b ers o f th e g en era ll yd ark er-sk inn ed B lack M o o rs and s outhern ethni c gr oups [of w hi ch B a i s al l egedl ya mem ber ] . . . . ” I d. at219. I n s um , the I J , “[i ] n r el y i ng on onl ygener al s t at ement s as i ndi cat or s of cha nged c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s a n d ig n o rin g e v id e n c e m o re sp e c if ica llya p p lica b le to [ B a ],” “ f a iled to c o n d u c t th e in d iv id u a liz e d re v ie w th a t K ra s te v re q u ir e s .” D ia llo , 1 7 8 F e d . A p p x . a t 8 3 7 . 2 T hus , w e conc l ude that“s ubs t ant i al evi dence does nots uppor tthe [I J ] ’ s deci s i on, and the m att erm us tbe r emanded forfur therpr ocee di ngs . ” I d. ; s ee Tam badou v. G onzal es , 446 F. 3d 298 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( vaca t i ng B I A ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng I J ’ s deni al of appl i cat i on for as y l um fr om M aur i t ani an r efuge e; i n doi ng s o, the courtr ej ect ed the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatcountrycondi t i ons had s ubs t ant i al l ychange d) ; N di ay e v. G onzal es , 186 Fed. A ppx. 6 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t sta te d e p a rtm e n t re p o rt d isc u ss in g c o n d iti o n s in M a u ritan ia w a s in su f

f icie n t to e sta b lish th a t, du e to c h a n g e d c o n d iti o n s, a lien lac k e d w e llfo u n d ed fe ar o f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n ). W e G R A N T the pet i t i on forr evi ew , V A C A T E the fi nal or derof r emoval , and R E M A N D forfur thercons i der at i on. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge