The Honor able Kathleen McD onald O’ M a ll e y , United States District J udg e for the Northe rn * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. 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: 07a0379n.06 F iled: Jun e 7, 2007 No. 06-3500 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT PATHE KA, 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 T H E B O A RD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be fore : ROGERS and COOK, Circuit J udg es; and O’ MAL L EY, District Judge. * COOK, Circuit J udg e. Pathe Ka , a native a nd citizen of Seneg al, s eeks rever sal of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ ( BIA) de nial of his applications for asylum, withholding of re moval, and p r o t e c t i o nu n d e r

t h e C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s t T o rtu r e ( C A T )
. R e l y i n g o nt h e I m m i g r a t i o nJu d g e ’ s ( I J) finding s, the BIA held that Ka failed t o timely file hi s asylum application and denie d it. The BIA, adopting and af

firming the IJ ’s d ec i s i o n, also found that Ka did not meet his burden of pr oof for withholding of remova l or for protec tion under the CAT. For the following rea sons, we deny Ka’ s petition for re view.
INo. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 2 - Ka is a c itiz en and na

tive of S en eg al who ca

me to the United States as a non-immigra

nt visitor in May

2000. Acc ording to Ka, he depar ted Seneg al afte r he wa s robbed on a bus in Dakar
. P ri o r t o h i s d ep ar tu re , h e w as m o d er at el y ac t i v e i nt h e J ef

-J el p o l i t i ca l p ar t y

i nS en ega l
. Al t h o u gh it was unclea

r duringhis hearing befor e the I J , it appear s that Ka joined the pa rty in 1988 and was
mos t a c tiv e in t

he pa rt y be tw e e n 1 99 7 a

nd 19 99 , w he n he was res po ns ibl e fo r n oti fy ingpa rt y members a

bout meeting s. Despite arr iving in the United States in 2000, Ka did not apply for a sy lum (o r a ny o t h e r f o r m o f i m m i g r a t i o n r e l i e f

) u n t i l a f t e r h e w a s ar

r e s t e d b y i m m i g r a t i o n o f f i c e r s in October 2004.
After his arre st, K a filed for asylum, withholding of re moval, and prote ction under the CAT, b a s e d o nh i s p o l i t i c a l a f

f i l i a t i o n . T h e IJ a s s e s s e d

e a c h o f h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s an d d e n i e d t h e m . T h e B IA aff irmed. Ka

now appe als.
II When, as here , the B I A adopts the I J ’s re asoning and supplements the I J ’s opinion, that opinion, as supplemented by the B I A, bec omes the basis for revie w. Se e Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 3 9 6 , 4 0 0 -0 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T h i s co u rt re v i ew s an y l ega l co n cl u s i o n s d e n o v o an d fa ct u al fi n d i n gs and cre dibilit y deter

minations for

substantial evidence
. Tapucu v. Gonzales , 3 99 F .3 d 7 36 , 7 38 (6 th Cir . 2 00 5) ; Sy lla v . I

NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925 (6th Cir. 2004). Under the substantial evidenc e standa rd, we must uphold the BIA’s dec ision if it i s supported by “‘r easona

bl e, substantial, and probative evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a w hole.’” Kol iad a v . I NS , 259 F.3d 482, 486 ( 6th Cir. 2001)No. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 3 - (q u o t i n g INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 5 02 U. S. 47 8, 48 1 (1 99 2) ). To re ve rs e the B I A’ s d e c isi on , w e mus t find that the evide nce not only supports a contra

ry conclusion, but compels i t. Kla witt e r v . I NS , 970 F. 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 -5 2 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ( ci t i n g Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 481). A. Asylum
Acc ording to the BIA, Ka f ailed to meet the filing deadline a nd has not provided a

ny circ umstances that would e x cuse his late f ailing. We lac k autho ri t y t o revie w this conclusion be c a us e 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (a )( 3) ba rs jud ic ia l r e vie w of “ any de te rm inatio n of the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l” reg ardingthe timeliness of an asylum application. Cas te lla no -C ha c on v . I NS , 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir. 2003). We note that the R EAL I D Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( D), modified § 1158( a)( 3)’s jud ic ia l- re vie w l imi ta tio n b y a dd ingthe fo llo wi ngpr ov isi on to t he statut e : Nothing in subpa

rag raph ( B) or (C), or i n any other provision of this chapte r (other than this section) whic h limit s or eliminates judicial re view, shall be c onstrued as prec luding r eview of

constitutional claims or questions of law ra ised upon a pe tition for r eview f

iled with an appr opriate c ourt of appe als in acc ordanc e with this section.
I n Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , th is c o u rt r e c o n c il e d

th e RE A LI D A c t w ith Castellano-Chacon , explaining that t he REAL I D Act “ modif[i ed] the holding of Castellano-Chacon to b ar [the c ourt ’s ] revie w of a sy lum applications denied for untimeliness only

when the a

ppeal se eks re view of discretionar

y or fa ctual questions, but not when the a ppeal seeks review of constitutional claims or matters of statutory

construction.” 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006). The que stions raised by Ka’ s
a ppe a l are c le arl y

in t he fo rm e r c a te g or

y of un re vie wa

ble de te rm inatio ns —f

a c tua l c ha lle ng e s.No. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 4 - No wh e re in any of Ka ’s ma te ri a ls d oe s h e ra ise any c on sti tut ion a l or

oth e rw ise le g a l c la ims . T he se circ umstances lea d us to conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to revie w the B I A’s denia l of Ka’ s asylum application. B. Withholding of Remova l
Ka a lso challeng es the B I A’s adoption and a ffirma nce of the I J ’s dec ision that he “did not meet his burden of

proof f or withhold i n g o f remova l.” Applicants qua lify for withholding of removal t o a particula

r country “if the A ttorney

Gene ral de cides that the a lien’s life or f ree dom
wo uld be thr e a te ne d in

that c ountr

y be c a us e of the a lie n’ s r a c e , re lig ion , natio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a par ticular socia l gr oup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)( A).
Given Ka ’s inability to persua de the I J that his evidenc e met even the lesser showingrequire d for a sy lum of a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution, the I J deter mined that “[h] e clearly

ha[d] not satisfied the hig her standa rd of pr oof for

withholding of removal.” Withholding of r emoval re quires an applica

nt to demonstrate by

a “c lear probability ”—mea

ning that it is “more likely t han not,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)—that he wi ll suffer f uture pe rsec ution because of his inclusion in one of the § 1231(b)( 3)(A) cate g ories. IN S v . S te v ic , 4 6 7 U. S
. 4 0 7 , 4 1 2 (1 9 8 4 ). T o as s es s t h e I J ’s wi t h h o l d i n gof -r e mov a l c on c lus ion , th e n, re qu ir e s a re vie w o f h is a sylum

c on c lus ion s.
The I J ’s asylum decision rested on thre e distinct g rounds, and the se cond and third g rounds also serve as base s for re view of the I J ’s withholding- of-r emoval dec ision. First, as discussed a bove,No. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 5 - the I J conclude d that Ka’ s petition was untimely and that he f

ailed t o satisfy

any exception to the one-y ear filing r equire ment. Second, re ly ing on the following discrepa ncies, the I J found Ka

not
c re dib le : (1 ) “ [H]is a sylum

a pp lic a tio n s ta te d that he ha d joi ne d the [Jef -Je l] pa rt y in 1 99 9, his testimony in court wa s that he joined in 1988.” (2 ) “ He te sti fi e d that he ha s o bta ine d o nly 1 JEF -JEL

c ard and it w ou ld h a ve be e n in 1988. When c onfronted with the fac t that his J EF- J ELcar d say s 1998, he stated that this was a re place ment car d.” (3 ) “ He wa s e xtre me ly va g ue in his te sti mony re g ard ing his po lit ica l activ iti e s. Whether he he ld some informal position or not. He was very vag ue as to how many meeting s he we nt to or how often the meeting s wer e held, which is odd for a pe rson who was c alling othe r people to go to the me eting s.” (4) “ T h e s ig n if

ic an t p o rti o no f

th e ti me th at h e w a s inv o lv e d in th e p arty , h e s p ent muc h o f h is t ime in Ivo ry Coa st. So h e ob vio us ly wasn’t ru

nn ingme e tin g s in Daka r.” (5) “ I n his asy lum application, he descr ibes his party as a democr acy party . He ne ver once use s the t itle of J EF- J EL
. And t he court notes that the asylum application was prepa red by his la wy er , i t was not pre pare d by some notary

or immigration consultant, who would not have made a ny eff ort to g et the story

rig ht.”
We acc ord these f

indings c onsiderable d ef er ence . See Klawi tter , 970 F.2d at 151-52 (“Substantial evidenc e is thus a def ere ntial standard whic h plainly does not entitle a re viewing court to r ever se . . . simply beca use it is convince d that it would have decide d t h e c as e differe ntly .” (interna l quotations omitted)). Ka’ s brief of fer s plausible explanations for some of the discr epanc ies relied on by

the I J in making his c redibility deter mination, but these expl anations esse ntially offe r
a c ounte r- int e rp re ta tio n o f K a ’s te sti mony ; th e y do no t compe l

the conc l u s i o n t h at the I J was incorre ct. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 481.No. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 6 - The I J also addre ssed t he merits of Ka ’s future -per secution cla im, and the I J ’s conc lusions on this ground sta

nd unrebutted. A s a t hird basis for deny ing Ka’s a sy lum petition, t he I J explained that even if

Ka we re e ntirely

cre dible, he had not “ remotely established a fea r of pe rsec ution based
on po lit ic a l a c tiv iti e s. ” Ka cla im s th at his me mbe rs hip in t he Jef -Je l pa rt y wi ll e xpos e him

to perse cution if he is re turned to Seneg al. He bas es t h i s contention on the U.S. State Depa rtment’s 2003 Country R eports on Human Rights Practices for Seneg al. The re port details var ious human ri g hts a bu se s th a t oc c ur

re d in Se ne g a l in 20 03
. Ka re lie s o n th e fo llo wi ngstate me nts in t he re po rt : “The re wer e i n s tance s of unknown assa ilants attacking g overnme nt office s and opposition politician s . ” U. S
. De p’t of State, 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Senegal , (2004), available at

http:// www.state .g ov/g/dr l/rls /h r r p t/2 0 0 3 /2 7 7 4 8
. h tm
. “ O n October 5, unknown assailants b ru t al l y att acke d Talla Sy lla, leade r of the opposition party J ef- J el and voc al cr itic of President Wade. Sy lla was e vacuated to Fr ance to obtain medical tre atment for his injuries. No
arr ests wer e made in the case , [and the pol ice were investigating the identities of Sy lla’s attac kers at y ear ’s end],” id
. (Ka omits t he bra ckete d materia l). “Dur ing the y ear , opposition m ember s and journalists increa singly

repor ted that they

wer e thre atene d and har assed af ter c riticizi ng the President.” Id.
Fr om these statements, Ka draw s t h e co n clus ions that “President Wade doe s not respec t democr acy

or human rig hts and that he used violent attacks on opposition party members to ensure that he would reta in his power .” Moreove r, appar ently rely ing solely on the same materials, in the
se c tio n o f h is b ri e f d isc us sin g wi thh old ingof re mov a l sp e c if

ic a lly , K a argue d th a t he ha sNo. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 7 - clea rly est ab l ished that his life and fr eedom would be threatened in Seneg al on acc ount of his politi cal opinions. He w as an a ctive member of the J ef-J el political party . The Gove rnment of Sene g al has a ctively soug ht to repre ss J ef- J el and other op po sit ion

pa rt ie s th ro ug h vio le nt a tta c ks
. Mr
. Ka ’s lif e and fr e e do m w ou ld c le arl y be in d ang e r i f h e is r e tur ne d to Se ne g a l.
The I J ’s re s p o n s es to these conte ntions, however, a re a dequate to meet the substantial evidenc e standard. T he I J explained that “ President Wade of Seneg al was e lected in a fre e and f

air e lection” and is “not a dictator.” As the I J noted, thoug h there “ar e some proble ms with ex ubera nt politi cal activity in the country ,” and a lthough “ some people a re oc casiona lly

beate n up by

thugs . . . it does
no t a pp e ar t o b e a

re g ula r t hin g ” and “ [i]t’ s h a pp e ne d o nly

to a fe w p art y le a de rs and

the se pe op le
are not being arr ested.” The I J also observe d that “[t] he par ties function, and there are many parties in t he c ountr y , o f whic h JEF -JEL

wa s o ne .” Sig nif

ic antl y , th e I J als o e xpla ine d th a t the pol ice a r e inv e s ti g a ti n g th e a tt a c k o nM r . Sy

ll a an d th e y ar e e v e nqu e s ti o n ing a ide s to the pr e sid e nt. Ev e n if se nio r part

y me mbe rs are in s ome je op ard y , th e re is nothing in the ba ckg round information that indicates that mere members, suc h as the re sp on de nt, wo uld

be in a ny ri sk wh a tso e ve r. . . . T he re sp on de nt’ s f e ar t hat he c ou ld be killed or put in prison are based on nothing but his own o p i n i o n an d are not c re dib le a t a ll.
Ka of fer s nothing to re but these conc lusio n s . As t h e I J corr ectly observe d, the only

actions that could be deemed persec ution happene d to opposition-party politicians; mere members are said to be subject only

to hara ssment or threats. Threats and hara ssment do not suffice; proving“per secution within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 42)(A) require s more than a fewis olated incidents of
ve rb a l ha ra ssm e nt o r i nti mid a tio n, un a c c omp anie d b y any ph y sic a l punis hme nt, inf lic tio n of ha rm ,No. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 8 - or sig nificant de privation of liberty .” Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 390 ( 6th Cir. 1998).
I n sum, the I J conclude d that Ka was not c redible and, even if assumed cr edible, could pr ove
ne ith e r a we ll- fo un de d fe ar no r a c le ar p ro ba bil ity of futur e pe rs e c uti on . B e c a us e Ka ha s f a ile d to show that substantial evidenc e compe ls this court to re v er se the I J ’s dec ision, we agree with the BIA’s conc lusion that Ka is not eligible f or withholding of

remova l and thus deny

his petition for revie w. C. Convention Aga inst Torture
Ka a lso challeng es t h e BI A’ s denial of his application for protec tion under the CAT. The B I A a do pte d a

nd affirm e d th e I J’s d e c isi on that K a did no t me e t hi s b ur de n o f p ro vin g “ that it is more likely

than not that he or she would b e t o rt ured if r emoved to the pr oposed country of
remova l.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c )(2)
. Th e I J den ie d K a ’s a

pp lic a tio n f

or re lie f u nd e r t he CA T a s f

oll ow s: As to convention ag ainst torture re lief, re spondent has not shown any evidenc e that tor tur e is i n a

ny wa y pr e va le nt in Se ne g a l. An d c e rt a inl y no re a so n to be lie ve that it is m or e lik e ly

tha n n ot t hat he wo uld b e tort

ur e d if he we re re tur

ne d to Se ne g a l. Th e re is n o r e a so n f

or be lie vin g that he wo uld

be tor tur e d b y any bo dy . Cer

ta inl y nobody connec ted with g overnme nt or which would ac t with gove rnment acquie scenc e. The re is violence in the country but it’s not li mited to opposit ion politics. There is also viol ence direc ted ag ainst g overnme nt officials. So it’s not the case that the President Wade ha s the ability or the inclination t o p er s ec u te other people.No. 06-3500

Ka v. Gonzales

- 9 - Ka r esponds by

ag ain noting a

fewinsta n ces of

alleg ed bruta lity

in Seneg al, including the attack suf fer ed by Talla Sy lla, to which Ka add s , “It ap p ea red to obser vers that the Pre sident of Seneg al was be hind the attack.” He cites the beating of journalists and rec ounts an incident in which a pre trial detaine e in Daka r wa s handcuf

fed and torture d by

prison g uards, whic h appar ently resulted in the amputation of his arms. Ka attempts to connec t these e vents to his own likelihood of being tor tur e d by say ingtha

t “ [t]he se e xamp le s sh owthat th e Se ne g a le se g ov e rnme nt i s w ill ingand a ble to use torture ag ainst its political opponents” a nd that beca

use “Mr . Ka is an a ctivist in an oppositi on po lit ic a l pa

rt y , h e is l ike ly to be a targ e t for tor tur e .” Sol id re a so ns su

pp or t the I J’s re

je c tio n of t

his tenuous conne ction. The isolated attack ag ainst Sy lla does not lead inesca pably to the conclusion that
a ll Je f- Jel m e mbe rs a re lik e ly to be tort

ur e d, and ne ith e r d oe s th e be a tin g of jou rn a lis ts. Hi s
re fe re nc e to t

he sit ua tio n invo lvi ngthe a

bu se d pr e tr ia l de ta ine e la c ks any de ta il that w ou ld s ug g e st, let alone c ompel, the conc lusions he draw s. At best, Ka’ s fea r of torture seems to stem from “ the exis tence of a ge nera liz ed or random possi bility of persecution i n his native countr y ,” which doe s not satisfy

his burden. Castellano-Chacon , 34 1 F .3 d a t 55 0. B e c a us e Ka of fe rs no thi ngthat c omp e ls the cour t to conclude that the I J ’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence , we a g ree with the BIA’s denia l of protec tion under the CAT a nd deny the petition for re view.