T he H o no rable E d m und A
. Sargus, Jr. , U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he So ut hern D i st ri ct of O hi o , s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0542n.06 No. 08-4047 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT Z U H A IR F A R IS B A

N IF A D E L, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF THE B O A R D O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS OPI NI ON

Be fo r e : G I LM A N a nd M c KEA G U E, C ir c ui t J ud g e s ; a nd SA R G U S, D is t r ic t Judge. * RONALD L EE GILMA N, Circuit Jud ge. Z uhair Fa ris Ba nifade l, a Palestinian native of the Wes t B ank , a

pp lie d fo r a sylum , wi thh old ing of re mov a l, and re lie f u nd e r t he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t To rt ur e (C AT ). He c la ims that th e Pa le sti nia n o rg anizatio n H a ma s b e a t and thr e a te ne d h im b e c a

us e he re fu se d to joi n th e m. A ft e r a he ari ng , th e imm ig ratio n jud g e (I J) a ssi g ne d to B anif a de l’ s c a se found that he was not c redible and that his claims fa iled on the merits. The B oard of I mmigration Appea ls (B I A) affirmed. For the re asons set for th below, we DENY Ba

nifade l’s petition f

or re view.
I. BACKG ROUND A. Bani fade l’ s im m igr at ion pr oc e e ding s a nd he ar ing te st im ony-2-

B anif a de l e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s in Se pte mbe r 2 00 5 a s a

no nim mig ra

nt v isi tor . H is v isa permitted him to stay

in the country

until March 2006, but he did not leave by that date. ( J A 215) Th e De pa rtme nt o f H ome land S ecur it y c omm e nc e d r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t hi m in Au g us t 2006. ( Id. ) B anifa del conc eded r emovability at th e in it ia l calenda

r hea ring , but subsequently

applied for asylum, withholding of remova l, a nd relief under the CAT. (JA 55, 191-210) The I J held a Ma y 2007 hear ing on B anifa del’s application. (J A 19) The fir st subject cover ed in the hea ring was Ba n i fa d el ’s marital status. Counsel for the g overnme nt established that Banifade l had married a United S tates citi zen but never lived with her. I n f a c t, th e w o ma

n b e c a me p r e g n an t w it

h an o th e r ma

n ’ s c h il d p r io r to B an if

a d e l’ s h e aring . The g overnme nt asserte d that the marr iag e wa s a sham. (JA 78) B anif a de l’ s c ouns e l c on c e de d th a t B anif a de l ha d e nte re d int o the marr ia g e in an a tte mpt to protec t himself for immigration pur poses. (JA 79) But counsel e x plained that B anifa del’s putative wife never filed a Petition for Alien Relative (F orm I -130) with the g overnme nt, a nd that o nce Ba nifade l rea liz ed that a sham marria g e to a United States citizen would not give him imm igr ation p r o t e c t i o n , h e “ b a c k e d

o f f ” t h a ti d e a . ( J A 7 9

- 8 0 ) B an i f a d e l ’ s c o u n s e l f

u rt h e r n o t e d t h a tt h e IJ sh ou ld c on sid e r B anif

a de l’ s a pp lic a tio n so le ly a s an a

pp lic a tio n f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l be c a

us e Ba nifade l had not filed it within one y ear of his arr ival in the United States, and thus did not meet the dea dline for f

iling an a sy lum application. (JA 80) The I J next hear d Ba

nifade l’s testimony
. Ba

nifade l stated t hat he had lived in the West Bank and had a job building tower s for a

n elec trical company for about 15 y ear s. (JA 88) He said that he beg an to have problems in Marc h 2004, when Ha mas members approa ched him a bout joining the
or g anizatio n. (JA 84 ) B anif a de l thou g ht that Ha ma s w ante d h im t o w or k f or the m “ so the y

c a n u se-3-

me as a barr ier [sic] t o transfe r betwe en Palestine a nd I srae l, some like wea

pons, s o me . . . stuff,” beca use his job require d him to go into I srae l. (J A 86) When Ba nifade l refuse d to join them, the Hamas me mbers bea

t him with sticks, “but not too bad.” (JA 84, 89) Ba nifade l stated that “[t] hey hit me a s a threat. They didn’t want to make a big sc ar on my body , but they

just teach me a

lesson.” (JA 89) B anif a de l sa id t hat H a ma s me mbe rs a g a in a sk e d h im t o jo in t he m in Jun e 20 04 , b ut h e a g a in ref used. (JA 84, 89-90) Acc ording to Ba nifade l, the Hamas me mbers once more hit him with sti cks as a thre at, but the beating was not sever e. B anifa del testified that he ne ver ha d to go to a hospital
or see a doctor

as a r esult of the attac ks. (J A 92) He f urther sa id tha t Ha m as m ember s approa ched him for a third and f

inal time in 2005, threatening that if he did not join them, they would “conde mn” hi m. (JA 85) Ba nifade l remembe rs the Ha ma s me mbe rs te lli nghim tha t “ it w ou ld b e the la st t ime . I f you are no t g oin g to f oll owus , we ’r e g oin g to s la

ug hte r your n e c k. ” (JA 90 ) Ham a s d id n ot p hy sic a lly a ssa ult him duri ngthi s encounte r. (JA 90-91) Ba n if a d e l s u b s e qu e n tl y

a p p li e d f o r a v is a to v is it th e U n it e d

St a te s in Ju ly 2 0 0 5
. H e f

e a rs returningto the West Bank be cause “[i] f I g o back to Palestine, I would be sca red be cause either I g o with them [ Hamas], follow their orde rs and r ules, and/or they

will kill me.” (JA 86) Ba nifade l did not believe that Hamas was actively looking for hi m at t he ti me of the hea ring , “but of c ourse, they wait for the m oment I g o back.” (JA 87) When asked w hether he had c omplained to any one, including the police or military , abou t t h e t h re at s from Hamas, Ba nifade l testified that he had not beca use he be lieved that, “[i]f I repor t it, nobody will help me.” ( J A 91) He also stated that Hamas-4-

w o u l d kn o w w h o h e w a s r e g ar d l e s s o f w h e r e h e l i v e d , an d t h a t t h e r e w a s a c c o r d i n g l y n o wh e re in the West Bank he could live in safe ty . (JA 110) Ba nifade l has four br others and a s ister currently living in the W est Ba nk. (JA 96) Hamas ha s n ot t hr e a te ne d o r o the rw ise c on ta c te d B anif a de l’ s si bli ng s. He e xpla ins that th is i s b e c a us e “Hamas don’t nee d them. Hamas ne eds me.” (JA 96) Ba nifade l f urther testified that he has ne ver been de tained in an I srae li, Palestini an, or Jordanian prison. (JA 91-92) Th e g ov e rnme nt atto rn e y

a sk e d B anif

a de l w hy , if

he ha d f e ar o f H a ma s, he did

no t pr omp tly apply for asylum onc e he was in the United States. (JA 93) Ba nifade l r esponded that he had he ard from a f riend, who ha d spoken to an attorney in L ouisiana, that people from Palest i n e were not allowed a sy lum in the United States. ( Id. ) The only thing Ba

nifade l r emember ed about the attorne y was that his first name was Da vid. ( Id. ) Finally , Ba

nifade l was aske d whether he had ma

rried his Ame rica

n wife f or immigration purposes. He answe red, “I n the beginning , y es. Jus t to protect my self. I had no other

way to go.” (JA 94 ) B a nif

a d e l t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s p u t a t i v e w i f

e h a d b e e n a c o w o r

k e r a t a c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e in J ackson, Te nnessee , and had a g ree d to marry him to help him out as a f riend. ( Id. ) He ne ver lived with the woman and he knew that she was pre g nant wit h an o t h er m an ’s child. ( Id. ) B anifa del broug ht no doc umentation of any kind to the hear ing, a

nd no witnesses (other

than himself) testified. (JA 95) B. The IJ’s decision At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the I J issued an oral ruling de ny ing B anifa del’s application. (JA 44) The I J found t hat Banifade l’s testimony was not cre dible, focusing mainly on Ba nifade l’s “sham mar

riag e” to a

woman who wa s preg nant with another man’s child whe n Banifade l was-5-

supposed to have be en living w ith her. (JA 45) That m arr iag e, the I J noted, put the cour t “into an impossibl e situation of being asked to be lieve the testimony of somebody

who is seeking withholding of r emoval, thus believing [Banifa del’s] testimony for one purpo s e, but also being require d to believe that testimony notwithstanding [Ba

nifade l’s] efforts to work a fra ud on the immigration sy stem.” (JA 46) Setting aside the cr edibility issue, the I J found t hat Banifade l had nonethe less failed to mee t his burden of p ro o f for withholding of re moval. (JA 46) (The I J did not consider B anifa del’s
a p p l i ca t i o n as o n e fo r as y l u m b ec au s e it wa s fi l ed af t er t h e on e- y ea r fi l i n g d ea d l i n e. ) Fi r s t , t h e IJ
c itedBani fade l’ s t ot al l ack o f cor rob orat io n fo r hi s t est im on y , n ot in g that Bani fade l co ul d re a so na bly have obta ined documentation from his siblings i n the W est Ba nk. ( Id. ) N ex t , ci t i n g IN

S v . E lia sZacarias , 502 U.S. 478 (1992), the I J held t hat Banifade l had failed to show that an im puted political opinion was at least one re ason for his mist reatment. (J A 47-48) T he I J pointed out that Ba nifade l had fa iled to show that he had a ny political opinion, except that he wa s vag uely ag ainst Hamas a

nd
su pp or te d p e a c e . H a ma s a

pp e are d to the I J to have so ug ht t o r e c ru it B anif a de l on ly fo r t he purp os e of smug g ling we apons. (JA 48) Th e I J add iti on a lly

fo un d th a t B anif

a de l ha d f

a ile d to e sta

bli sh th at he h a d s uf

fe re d p a st perse cution or held a well-founde d fea r of future prosec ution. (JA 48-49) Considering Ba nifade l’s two mild beatings, the I J noted that the “Sixt h Circuit has held that dete ntions and even f airly sever e b ea t i n gs d o n o tco n s t i tu t e p er s ec u t i o n , ” c i t i n g Pi lic a v . I NS , 388 F.3d 941, 954 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (holding that the applica

nt’s beating by policemen, which resulted in head injurie s and a w eek- long hospitaliz ation, coupled with two brie f per iods of i mprisonment, wer e isolated incide nts that did not amount to persec ution). (J A 48) The I J also found that B anifa del had not shown a well-founde d fea

r-6-

of future perse cution beca use none of Banifa del’s fa mily members we re ha

rasse d by Hamas a fter he l ef tt h e W es tBa n k , ci t i n g Matter of A-E-M

- , 21 I &N Dec
. 1157, 1160 (B I A 1998) (notingthat the applicant’ s fea

r-of -per secution arg ument was undercut by the fact that none of his family members had bee n harme d by

the Shining Path terr orist gr oup since he depar ted fr om Peru). (

Id. )
Finally , as to Ba

nifade l’s CAT claim, the I J found that B anifa del fa iled to show a cle ar probability

that he would be tor

tured if he returned t o t h e W es t Bank. The I J pointed out that B anif a de l ha d n ot ( 1) su ff

e re d p e rs e c uti on

or tor tur e in the pa st, (2 ) e sta

bli sh e d th a t e ve ry

wh e re in the West Ba

nk was unsafe for him, or (3) showed that Hamas was s eeking him out. Banifa del was
acc ording ly

order ed re moved to the West Bank. ( J A 50) C. The BIA’s decision Ba nifade l filed a notice of a

ppeal to the B I A in J une 2007. (JA 33-35) The BIA dismissed t h e ap p ea l i nJ u l y

2 0 0 8
. (J A 6 -7 ) A s fo r t h e t i m i n g o f B an i fa d el ’s as y l u m ap p l i ca t i o n , t h e B IA
a g re e d w iththe I J tha t B anif a de l ha d fa ile d to pr ov ide a va lid e xcu se fo r h is l a te a pp lic a tio n a

nd that, in any event, Banifa del had conce ded in the hearing that his application for a sy lum was time-bar red. (JA 6) The BI A also aff

irmed the I J ’s ruling s that denied withholding of re moval and re lief under the CAT. (JA 6-7)
II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review “B eca use the B I A a d o pted the I J ’s dec ision with additi onal commentar y , we r eview the decision of the I J , as suppl emented by the BI A, as the final administrative orde r.” Ceraj v. Muk asey ,-7-

511 F.3d 583, 588 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Qu es t ions of law involving immig ration proc eeding s are revie wed de novo. Al i v . A sh c ro ft , 3 6 6 F. 3 d

4 0 7 , 4 0 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). Bu tt h e IJ ’s fa ct u al fi n d i n gs will not be disturbed if substantial evidenc e supports such f indings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 5 02 U. S. 478, 481 (1992) ( holding that a fac tfinder’ s findings w ill be u p held if “suppor ted by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a whole”) (citation om itted). Under this standard, we will not reve rse a fac tual deter mination of the I J unless we f ind “that the evide nce
no t on ly su pp or ts a c on tr ary c on c lus ion , b ut c o m

p e ls it.” Mar ku v . A sh c ro ft , 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004) (e mphasis in origina l). B. Asylum application As an initial matter, we note—and Banifa del concedes—that we lack j urisdiction to review the denial of

an asy lum application to the extent that an appea l s ee k s re v i ew of discretionar y or fa c tua l rul ing s. 8 U .S. C.S. § 1 25 2( a )( 2) (D ) ; Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 748 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (c onstruing § 1252( a)( 2)(D) to bar this court’s consideration of asy lum applications rejec ted for untimeliness except wher e an a ppeal se eks re view of constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction). Ba

nifade l doe s not a dvance any constitutional or statutory -construc tion issues reg ardingthe denial of his a sy lum application. We are there fore limit ed to re viewing the merits of the I J ’s and the B I A’s findings that B anifa del was not e ntitled to withhol ding of remova l or relief under the CAT. C. Withhol din g of rem oval 1. Le ga l f ra mewo rk A petition for withholding of remova l is a reques t t h at the Attorne y Gene ral ha lt removal proce eding s if the alien’ s “life or fre edom would be thre atene d in that country beca use of the a lien’s-8-

ra c e , r e lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a pa rt ic ula r so c ia l g ro up , or po lit ic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A)
. An applicant may satisfy his or her bur den of pr oof for withholding of r emoval by demonstrating that the applicant has suffe red past perse cution in the country of re moval on acc ount of on e of the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns . 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b )( 1) (i ). Th is s ho wi ngtr ig g e rs a
re bu tta ble pr e su mpt ion

that th e app li cant’ s li fe or fr e e do m w ou ld b e thr e ate ne d in the futur e if
remove d to that country
. Id
. An applica

nt may alternatively

seek w ithholding of remova l by establishing that “it is more lik e ly tha n n ot” that he or

sh e wo uld

su ff er harm in th e futur e up on re mov a l to the ho me
c ountr y —e ve n if the a pp lic ant h a s n ot s uf

fe re d p a st p e rs e c uti on . 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b )( 2) . Thi s is
a more demanding b u rd en o f proof than the one e mploy ed for evaluating a

n asylum claim, which
re qu ires only

tha t an a pp lic ant e sta

bli sha “ we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f p e rs e c uti on .” 8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 13 (b )( 2) ; Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 1998) (re jecting an applica

nt’s withho ld in g - o f

- r e mo v a l c la im

b e c a u s e h e c o u ld

n o t s a ti s f y th e le s s s tr in g e n t s ta

n d ar d f o r a s y lum elig ibilit y ). Corroborating doc uments are not nece ssarily require d to satisfy

an applica

nt’s burden of proof. “ [T] he testimony

of the a pplicant, if cre dible, may

be suff icient to sustain the burden of proof without corrobor ation.” Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). But if co rr o b o rating docume nts are r easona bly available , “[t] he abse nce of such cor roborating evidenc e can l ead to a

finding that an applica

nt has failed to mee t [ his or] her burden of proof.” Id. An I J ’s cr edibility

deter mination is considered a fi nding of fac t and is review ed under the defe rential substantial-e vidence standard. Duan Y ing Chen v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 468, 472 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Unde r the REAL

I D Act of 2005, which applies to applications, such as Ba nifade l’s, filed-9-

on or a ft e r M ay

11 , 200 5, an I J may

ba se an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingon

inc on sis te nc ie s, inacc urac ies, or fa lsehoods “without reg ard to whe ther a n inconsistency , inaccurac y , or fa lsehood g oes to the hea

rt of the a pplicant’s cla im.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (iii). 2. The

IJ ’s de nia l of

with hol din g o f re mova l is sup

po rte d b y sub sta ntia l evide nce
a. Cre dib ili

ty I n reje cting Ba

nifade l’s application fo r withholding of remova l, the I J first found that Ba nifade l’s testimony

was not cr edible. The I J based this finding larg ely on Ba nifade l’s admission that he had e ntere d into a marria g e solely for immigr ation purposes. Ba nifade l arg

ues on appeal t hat t he I J ’s cr edibility finding was unre asonable beca use “the re
ar e an y n u mb e r o f r e a s o n s w h y s o m e o n e m i g h t e n g a g e i n a s h a m m ar

r i a g e t h a tar e w h o l l y consistent
w i t h a f e ar o f r e tu r n i n g t o t h e c o u n t r

y o f o r i g i n . ” ( B an i f

a d e l B r . a t6

- 7 ( E mp h a s i s i no r i g i n a l
. ) ) In
su pp or t of thi s argume nt, B anif

a de l c ite s In re O-D- , 2 1 I &NDec . 1079 (B I A 1999), for the proposition that indivi duals who flee perse cution often use f raudule nt documents to procur e entr y into the United States. I n In re O- D- , th e I J had

de te rm ine d th a t th e a

pp lic ant w a s n ot c re dib le beca u s e th e M a

u r it an ia n id e n ti ty c ar d an d b ir th c e rti f ic a te s u b mi tt e d in to e v id e n c e we re,
re s p ectively , “a know n counter feit” a nd “proba bly counter feit.” Id. at 1083. The B I A upheld the I J ’s adve r s e c r e d ib il it

y f in d in g o nth e b a s is th a t t h e a p p li c an t h a d

n o t p r o v id e d

a s a ti s f a c to ry explanation for his use of t h e fraudulent documents. Id. at 1083-84. B ut the BIA’s dec ision sug g ested that, if the a

pplicant had be en able to prove that his use of a counter feit identification card
and a fa lse bir th c e rt if ic a te ha d b e e n n e c e ssa

ry to e sc a pe pe rs e c uti on , th e us e of su c h d oc ume nts alone would not have supported an a dverse cre dibilit y finding
.-10-

This court consider ed the impact of a sham mar riag e on an a

pplicant’s cr edibility

in Safadi v. Gonzales , 148 F. App’x 372 (6th Ci r. 2005). That decision discussed the implications of In re OD- as we ll as case law fr om other circ uits that have addr essed the pr opriety of an I J consideringan
a p p li c an t’ s p r e v io u s in s ta

n c e s o f d is h o n e s ty in a s s e s s in g c r e d ibilit y . Id. at 374-76. The court ultimately

conclude d that it was not require d to decide whether the s ham m arr iag e, standing alone,
wa s e no ug h to su

pp or t an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingbe c a

us e the I J’s a dv erse c re dib ili ty deter mination was based on other discrepanc ies betwee n the applicant’s application and his hearing testimony
. Id. at 376. Safadi is of limit ed assistanc e to our a naly sis in thi s case beca

use it applied thi s circuit’s pr eREA LI D A c t st and ard

of re vie w f or cred ib il it y de te rm inatio ns . We have on ly re c e ntl y be g un to hear petitions for revie w to w hich the REAL I D Act cre dibilit y standard does apply , so the i ssue of whether a sham mar

riag e on its own c an jus tif y an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingis on e of f irst imp re ssi on . T he REA LI D A c t’ s c lari fi c a tio n that an “ inc on sis te nc y , in a c c ur a c y , o r f a lse ho od ” in an applicant’s t estimony need not g o to the heart of t he applica nt’s claim would see m to sugg est that
a sham marria g e, standing alone, could justify an adver se cre dibilit y finding
. But an im p o rtant
co mp l i ca t i n g fa ct o r i nt h i s ca s e is t h at Ba n i fa d el n ev er ac tu al l y at t em p t edt o u s e h i s s h am m arri age to his benefit for immig ration purpose s. I n other wor ds, Ba nifade l got mar

ried i n the hope that marria g e to a U.S. citizen would eventua lly allow him to stay

in the United States, but his wife neve r filed a F orm I -130. As his counsel noted, B anifa del essentially “bac ked off

” the idea . We need not de c ide thi s is su e be c a

us e , as dis c us se d be low , B anif a de l ha s n ot o the rw ise e sta bli sh e d h is e lig ibi lity for withholding of re moval.

b. Lack of c orroboration-11-

Ev e n if an im mig ratio n ju dg e fi nd s an app li cant to b e c re dib le , “ wh e re it i s r e a so na ble to expect corr oborating evidenc e for cer tain alleg ed fa cts perta ining to the specifics of a n applicant’ s claim, such e vidence should be provided. . . . The absence of such corr oborating evidenc e ca n lead to a finding that an applica nt has failed to me et her burden of proof .” Do ro sh v . A sh c ro

ft , 398 F.3d 3 7 9 , 3 8 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g In re S- M-J , 21 I & NDec . 722, 724-26 (BI A 1997)). T his court has applied this standar d to deny asylum or withholding of r emoval fr om applicants who have f ailed to corr oborate their ot herw ise cre dible testimony of past or threatened pe rsec ution. I n Do ro sh , for example, the court re

jected D orosh’s excuses for her lack of c orrobor ating evidenc e—that she ha d been una ble to contac t he r mother in U kraine beca use her mother

did not have a te lephone, a nd that contac ting he r mother or

g irlfriends would have jeopa rdized their safety
. The court ag ree d with the BIA that it was re asonable to expect Dorosh to have r equeste d corro b o ra t i n g letters in a wa y that minimi zed any

risk to others. I t there fore conclude d that the Dorosh’s asylum claim failed on the merits due to a lac k of cor roborating e vidence Id. at 383-84. L ikewise, in Y

inggui Lin v. Holder , 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 2009), the petitioner wa s a F alun Gong prac titioner who had alleg edly fled from perse cution in China. Id. at 974. Even thoug h the I J had found L in to be cre dible, he denie d asylum based on L in’s failure to present a ny corr oborating evidenc e of his F alun Gongprac tice either in China or i n the United States. Id. at 975. This court held that substantial evidenc e supported the I J ’s conc lusion that L in could rea sonably have be en expected to produc e cor

roboration for his testimony
. Id. at 978. He re , B anif

a de l in tr od

uc e d n o d oc ume ntary evi den c e or any wi tne sse s to su

pp or t hi s testimony . The I J specific ally noted t hat Banifade l had not eve n introduced e vidence to document that he had a ctually

worke d for a

n elec trical c ompany

that did jobs in bot h I srae l and Palestine.-12-

(JA 27-28) Ba

nifade l admitted in his t estimony that he did not have any paper s showing that he had
ever worke d for the c ompany , but said that he “c [oul d] obt ain such doc umentation.” (JA 95) We conclude that sub s tantial evidenc e supports the I J ’s deter mination that corrobor ation was
re a so na bly a va ila ble un de r t

he c ir cum st ances. Se ve ra l of B anif a de l’ s c los e fa

mil y members—includingfour br others and a sister—re sided in the West Bank at the time of the hea ring and could have provide d evidenc e supporting his cl aim s. Ba nifade l did not assert, and the r ecor d does not indicate, that his family members ha d any

rea son to fear

that they woul d b e h ar m ed by Hamas f or assisting him. To the contra ry , Ba nifade l testified that Hamas w as not curr ently looking f o r h i m an d t h a th i s f a m i l y h a d n o tb e e nc o n t a c t e d

b y t h e o r g an i z a t i o n . ( J A 8 7 ) M o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y, Ba nifade l himself testified that documentar y proof of his e mploy

ment was available to him, but t hat he had not br oug ht it to t he hea ring . (JA 95) Ba nifade l has thus failed to meet his burden of proof f or withholding of

remova l beca

use he
c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y h a v e b e e ne x p e c t e d

t o p r o d u c e c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rth i s t e s t i m o n y, but did not do so. Do ro sh , 398 F.3d at 382. This issue is dispositive, so we nee d not addre ss the I J ’s alternative bases f

or re jecting Ba

nifade l’s claim. D. Relief un der the C AT To obtain relief

under the CAT, Ba

nifade l must show that he would more li kely than not be subjected to torture afte r beingdeporte d to the West Bank. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2) ( placing on the applica

nt seeking relief under the CAT the burden of proving “that it is more li kely than not that he or sh e wo uld be tor tur e d if re mov e d to the pr op os e d c ountr y of re mov a l” ); Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 951 (6th Cir. 2004) (re citing the same standa rd). The I J , in assessing the risk of futur e torture, must consider

(1) e vidence of any

past torture inflicte d upon the applica nt; (2) evidence that-13-

the applica

nt can r elocate to a par

t of the country

of re moval wher e he or

she is not likely

to be tortured; (3) evidenc e of g ross, flag rant, or m as s violations of human rig hts within t he countr y of
re mov a l; a

nd (4 ) a ny oth e r r e le va

nt i nf or ma tio n r e g ard ing con di ti on s in the c ountr

y of re mov a l. Mapouya v . Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 414- 415 (6th Cir. 2007). As discussed in Part I I .C.2.b. above, Banifa del fa iled to provide any corr oborating evidenc e relating to the spe cifics of his alleg ed per secution at the hands of Hamas. H e instead ba ses his CAT claim solely

on the g ener al human rig hts r ecor d of the Palestinian Authority , rathe r than on a ny clea r probability

that he, specifically , would be torture d if retur ned to the West Ba

nk. (B anifa del B r. at 10-11) Such statements, even if taken at fac e value, do not show that it is m ore likely than not that B anif a de l hi mse lf

wo uld be su bje c t to su c h tre a tme nt, and he the re fo re c ann ot s uc c e e d o n h is c la im for r elief unde r the CAT. See A lmuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 751 (6th Cir. 2006) (reje cting
a CA T c la im by a petitio ne r w ho g e ne ra lly c ite d I sr a e l’ s r e c or d o f t or tur ingand

de ta ini ngc e rt a in Palestinians). We thus conclude that the I J proper ly denied B anifa del’s application for re lief under the CAT
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we DENY Ba

nifade l’s petition for re view.