The Honor able Rober t H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Eastern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0386n.06 Filed: June 27, 2008 No. 07-4003 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
T I M OT HE ALOG

NO N an d AM E ZANDO ADAKO , Pe tit ion e rs , v.
MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, United S tates Attorney Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW FROM A F I NA LORDE R O F TH E BO ARD O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be fore : SI L ER and COL E, Circuit J udg es; and CL EL AND, District Judge
. * SILE R , Cir cu it J udg e. Timothe Alog non and Amezando Ada ko petition this court for
re vie w o f t

he B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls’ (“BI A” ) d e nia l of the ir a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , withholding of r emoval, and relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . Alog non and Adako a rgue that the Immigra

tion J udg e’s ( “I J ”) a dverse cre dibilit y finding was unsupporte d by the
rec ord, and the y

ask this court to overr

ule the cr edibility

finding and re mand to the ag ency for f urther proce eding s. We DENY the petition. BACK GR OUNDNo. 07-4003

Alognon v. Muk

asey

- 2 - Alog non and Adako are husband and w ife. Alognon is a native a nd citizen of Niger . Adako is a native a

nd citizen of Tog o. At their asylum hearing , Alog non testified t hat he was pe rsec uted
and tor tur e d in Ni g e r d ue to h is r e latio ns hip to the fo rm e r Pre sid e nt o f N ig e r, wh om h e re fe rr e d to as his uncle. He testified that he wa s arr ested, detained, a nd tortured thre e times betwe en Apr il and J u n e 1 9 9 9 by

the state police . Alog non further testified that af

ter he fled the c ountry , his wife, children, a

nd mother we re the victims of perse cution and violence. Adako testified to her husba nd’s
arr ests as we ll as the violence experienc ed b y t h eir family afte r Alog non left the c ountry . They int ro du c e d s e ve ra l do c ume nts , inc lud ing me dic a l r e c or ds and fa mil y c or re sp on de nc e , to c or

ro bo rate their cla ims. The I J denied Alog non’s applications for asylum, withholding of remova l, and CAT re lief. Th e I J fo un d th a t A logno n a nd Ad ako la c ke d c re dib ili ty and did no t pr ov ide re a so na

bly ava ila ble
corr oboration for

their cla ims. The I J then addressed the merits of Alog non’s asylum application and conclude d that he had failed to meet his burden of proving a reasonable fea r of persec ution, citing a 2004 State De partment Country Report which descr ibed t he cur rent c onditions i n Nig er a s having no politically

motivated killings, no political prisoners, and allowing demonstrations by opposition parties. The BIA summarily aff irmed the de nial of re lief without a sepa rate opinion. DI SCU SSIO N Where the BIA af

firms the dec ision of the I J without issui ng a sepa rate opinion, we re view the decision of the I J direc tly
. Mapouya v . Gonzales , 4 8 7 F. 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 5 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). We revie w the I J ’s finding s of fa ct for substantial evidenc e. Id. Under

this defer ential standar d, “the test is not whether this Court might have decide dNo. 07-4003

Alognon v. Muk

asey

Al og no n’ s se c on d a sylum a pp lic a tio n w a s p re pa

re d w iththe a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. 1 - 3 - differ ently

but whether

this Court i s compelled to conc lude that the [I J ] erred.” Id. at 405-06 (q u o t i n g Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 379, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2004)). We also review

whether the I J ’s cr edibility

finding was s u p p o rt ed by substantial evidence in the rec ord. Liti v. Gonzales , 411F.3d 631, 637 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Although the standard of revie w is defer ential, the adve rse cre dibilit y finding “must be supported by specific rea sons” within the
rec ord. I d. Ad ditionally , the “‘ adver se cr edibility finding must be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt’s claim,’ a

nd cannot be based on irr eleva nt inconsistencies.” Mapouya , 487 F. 3 d at 4 0 6 -0 7 (q u o t i n g Liti , 411F.3d at 637). I n this case, the I J cited spec ific re asons for his a dverse cre dibilit y findin g. Al o gn o n and Ad ako c ha lle ng e th a t de te rm inatio n o n th e ba sis that any omi ssi on s o r i nc on sis te nc ie s w e re the re su lt of cultura l inhibit ions and a limited unders t an d i n g of Eng lish in preparingtheir first asy lum applications. Howeve r, the I J listed eleven spe cific omissions and inconsistencies in the r ecor d that

1 g o to the hear

t of the Petitioners’ claim. Among these inconsistenc ies, the I J noted that in Alog non’s
ame nd e d a

pp lic a tio n h e c la ime d he wa s the vic tim of e le c tr ic sh oc k tr e a tme nt duri nghis thi rd arr e st, but he fa iled to include any mention of such tre atment duringthat arr est on his direct e x amination. I t w a s n ot u

nti l hi s c ro ss- e xami natio n by the g ov e rnme nt that Al og no n br ou g ht up e le c tr ic a l sh oc ks , despite a thorough descr iption of hi s third arr est and detention on direc t examination. The I J further noted that Alog non failed to include in his testim ony that his house was under surveillance or that the po lic e d e l i v e r e d

a s u m m o n s f

o r h i s ar r e s tt o h i s h o u s e , t h o u g hb o t hf a c t s w e r e i n c l u d e d

i nh isNo. 07-4003

Alognon v. Muk

asey

- 4 - amende d asylum application. Al s o cited by the I J was the discr epanc y betwee n Alog non and Adako’ s testimony

and their suppor

ting doc uments and applications reg ardingthe ar rest of Al o gn o n ’s m o t h er . Al t h o u ghb o t hAl o gn o nan d Ad ak o t es t i fi edt h at Al o gn o n ’s m o t h er wa s arr ested, neither his mother ’s statement nor his c hildren’s statement descr ibed such an arr est. Bo t h o f t he Pe tit ion e rs ’ o ri g ina l a sylum a pp lic a tio ns a lso fa il to men tio n any su c h ar re st. Gi ve n th e se sp e c if

ic discrepa ncies, the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination is supported by

substantial evidence
. Al og no n a

nd Ad ako a lso argue that th e y me t th e burd e n o f p ro of

to e sta bli shthe ir e lig ibi lity for a sy lum. To qualify

for a sy lum, an applicant must show that “he suffe red pa st persec ution or has
a we ll-founded f

ear of future perse cution.” Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 396 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Even a ssuming the Petitioners’ c laims to be cre dible, the I J found that Adako pr esente d no evidenc e
as to why she could not r eturn to her home c ountry of Tog o. The I J further

noted that her

claim that
s h e c o u l d n o tr e tu r nt o N i g e r

w a s c o n t r a d i c t e d b y h e r o w nt r a v e l s i nan d

o u to f t h a tc o u n t r

y. A lt h o u gh A lo gn o n , if

d e e me d cre dible, prese nted some evide nce of past perse cution, the g overnme nt pro v id e d e v id e n c e to r e b u t t

h e c o r r e s p o n d in g p r e s u mp ti o no f f u tu r e p e r s e c u ti o n . A f

u n d a me n ta l chang e in circ umstances in a c ountry can rebut the pr esumption of future pe rsec ution. See D ashi v. Gonzales , 214 F. App’x 581, 586-87 (6th Cir. 2007). In findingthat the Petitioners did not satisfy their burde n of proof

, the I J cited a 2004 State Depa rtment Country Report t hat described Nig er a s havin g no po lit ical ki ll in gs , n o p oli tic a l pr iso ne rs , a nd g ov e rnme nt a

pp ro va l of

pu bli c pr ote sts
. Th e se re po rt s are g e ne ra lly c on sid e re d th e be st s ource o f i nf or matio n o n p re se nt c on dit ion s in fore ign c ountries, and it is proper for a n I J to rely

on such re ports in making his finding
. See id. at 587. Given the Petitioners’ la ck of e vidence to refute the State Depa rtment Repor t, we ar e notNo. 07-4003

Alognon v. Muk

asey

- 5 - compelled to conc lude that the I J err ed in finding the P etitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. Be cause the Petitioners failed to mee t the burden of proof f or asy lum, they also faile d to meet the burden f or withholding of

remova l. Se e Be rri , 4 68 F .3 d at 39 7. Simi larl y , the Pe tit ion e rs fa ile d to establish their entitlement to CAT protec tion. P ETIT ION DENIED.