The Honor able Ar thur J . Tarnow , United States Dist rict Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Michig an, 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 File Na me: 09a0591n.06 No. 07-4417 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
AMADOUTI DI ANE SOUMARE, P etitioner , v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., United States Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VI EW OF AFI NAL ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS
O P I N I O N

Before: M OORE an d WHIT E, Circuit Judges; TARNOW, Distric t Judge. * KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioner Amadou Tidi an e Soumare (“ Soumare ” ) s e e ks re vie w o f a n o rd e r of the B oa

rd of I mmi g ra

tio n App e a ls (“ B I A” ) r e mov inghim to M a ur ita nia . T he I mmi g ratio n Jud g e (“ I J”) fo un d tha t Souma re wa s not cr e dib le and

wa s in e lig ibl e f o r a s yl u m , w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l , an d

r e l i e f u n d e r t h e C o n v e n t i o nA g a i n s tT o rtu r e . T h e B IA aff irmed and a dopted the re asoning of the I J ’s dec ision. For the r easons discusse d below, we DENY the petition for re view of the BIA’s dec ision. I. BACKG ROUND Soumare, a native and c itiz en of Ma uritania, wa s born in Nouadhibou, Maur itania, in 1972. A b la c k M a

ur ita nia n o f t he Son ink e e thn ic g ro up , Soumare liv e d wi th h is f a mil y in M a ur ita nia un tilTh e S t ate De partment’s 2005 r eport on Maur itania desc ribes continuing discrimination 1 a g a ins t e thn ic min or iti e s in c lud ingbla c k M a ur ita nia ns : Racial a n d ethni c minorities fac ed socie tal discrimination. Racial and c ultural tension and discrimination arose from the g eog raphic and cultural divides betwee n Mo or and B la c k Af

ri c an. Th e Mo or s we re div ide d amon g nume ro us e thn o- lin g uis tic tribal and c lan g roups and f urther disti n gu i s h ed racially as either Whit e Moor or B la c k M oo r, alt ho ugh it of te n w a s d if

fi c ult to d ist inguis h b e tw e e n th e tw o b y sk in color. White Moor tribes and clans, many of whom we re da rk-skinned a fter c enturies of intermar

riag e with B erbe rs and sub-Sahara n Afric an g roups, dominated positions in g ov e rnme nt and bu sin e ss. . . . Con c e ntr a te d in the so uth , the Ha lpu la ar ( the larg e st non-Moor g roup), the Wolof, a nd the Soninke e thnic g roups wer e under repr esente d in t he mil ita ry and se c ur ity se c tor s. Joint Ap pe nd ix (“J .A. ”) at

17 3 ( U. S. D e p’ t of

State 20 05 Cou

ntr y Re po rt on Human Ri g hts Practice s: Mauritania at 12). I n a re vised statement attac hed to a supp l em en t al I -589 filed on Nove mber 11, 2005, 2 Soumare state d th a t he , h is young e r s ist e r, fathe r, and br oth e r w e re de po rt e d in 19 89 . H ow e ve r, in his testimony

befor e the I J , Soumare i n dicated that it was his two sist ers a nd fathe r who we re de po rt e d a lon g wi th h im. 2 1989. I n 1989, he and othe r family members, a long w ith other b l ac k M au ritanians in the 1 nei ghbo rh oo d, we re fo rc ibl y re mov e d f

ro m th e ir ho me by arm e d p oli c e and

oth e r Wh ite Mo or s. They wer e held at a mosque overnig ht, the n taken to the airport and transpor t ed t o n ei ghboring Seneg al. The I J g ener ally cre dited this testim ony

and ca lled it “a matter

of histo ri ca l rec ord that 2 larg e number s of black Ma uritanians in the per iod beg inning a round 1989 we re f

o rc i b l y deporte d fr om t he c ountr y .” J.A. a t 28 (I J De c . at 14)

. Soumare sta y e d with his fa

mil y a t a re fu g e e c a mp i n Da g ana , Se ne g a l, f

or aro un d tw o w e e ks and

the n we nt to Da

ka r, Se ne g a l, wh ile the re st of his fa mil y
rema ined at the c amp. I n M arc h 1 99 6, Soumare ’s fathe r le ft the re fu g e e c a mp i n Se ne g a l and re tur ne d to Ma ur ita nia in an attempt to rec laim the family ’s house in Nouakchott, which had been c onfiscate d. One we ek later, Soumare lear

ned fr om a s i s t er l i ving in Noua kchott that afte r re turning his father had bee n
arr e ste d, tor

tur e d, and

wa s n owin a

ho sp ita l in

a c oma . So uma

re im med iate ly

re tur ne d toSoon after joining the AC party in 1997, Soumare, who was trained as a telecommunications 3 technicia n, wa s referr ed by

the AC party ’s pre sident, Messaoud Ould B oulkhair, to a job at the t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c o mp an y A
. F
. R
. I. T
. E
. L. S o u m ar e w o r k e d a s a c r e w c h i e f

a tA
. F
. R
. I. T
. E
. L. until leaving Ma

uritania in Jul y

2004. 3 Mauritania to visit his father a nd was a ble to visit him at t he National Hospital. Soumare said that both of his father ’s leg s were broken, his fa ce w as bruised, a nd he wa s unabl e t o s ee o r h ear the family . His father

died on April 27, 1996. I n 1997, Soumare joined the Action for Chang e (“ AC”) pa rty afte r mee ting with a f

riend of his la te fathe r’ s wh o wa s a se nio r me mbe r of the pa rt y . Soumare sa id that he joi ned th e party b ec au s e h e “ d i d

n o twa n t[ h i s ] fa t h er

t o h av e d i edi n v ai n an d

. . . wa n t edt o j o i nt h e f

i gh tt o ch an ge the g overnme nt and equa l rig hts for blac k Mauritania ns.” J.A. at 189 (Supp. I -589 Stmt. at 2). Soumare wor

ked in the y outh section of the party , distributing fly ers, holding meeting s and working to rec ruit y oung men. I n 2002, the g overnme nt of Mauritania banned the AC party
. I n 2003 or 3 2004 , So u ma

r e jo in e d th e Po p u la

r Pr o g r e s s iv e A ll ia

n c e ( “ PP A ” ) , w h ic h li k e th e A C p arty w as heade d by

Messaoud Ould B oulkhair. I n his origina l asy lum application (“I -589”) and an attached statement, in his supplemental I -589 and an attache d revised statement, and in his testimony befor e the I J , Soumare de scribed thr ee inc ide nts that oc c ur

re d u po n h is r e tur

n to Ma ur ita ni a . T he fi rs t of

the se inc ide nts too k p la c e in November

2001, when Soumare went to local authorities in an ef fort to re claim his family ’s house. On Novembe r 5, 2001, Soumare w as told by three Moor cler

ks at the State Of

fice of Estates that he
ne e de d to br ing his fathe r’ s d e a th c e rt if ic a te and pr oo f o f r e la tio ns hip . Wh e n So uma re re tur ne d w ith the re qu ir e d d oc ume nts the fo llo wi ngda y , h e wa s to ld t

hat th e hous e no w b e lon g e d to a wh ite Mauritanian. One of the Moor cler ks then ca lled him a thief and be g an pushing him, and SoumareI n h is t e sti mony be fo re the I J, bu t no t in

his I -5 89 state me nt, Soumare sa id t hat of fi c e rs a lso 4 hit him i n the stomach. J.A. at 109 (Hr’ g Tr. at 34:16–17). I n his testimony

befo re the I J , Soumare stated that he was ha ndcuff ed and dr iven by

the 5 police to the station. J .A. at 119 (H r’gTr. at 4 4 : 2

– 4 ). However, in his I -589 statement Soumare stated that the police office rs “aske d me to f ollow the m to their

station where they

kept me wa iting until 2 P .M.” J.A. at 189 (Supp. I -589 Stmt. at 2). 4 beg an pushing back. T he police soon arr ived, arr ested Soumare, and took him to a police station. When he protested his innocence , acc ording to Soumare, one of the offic ers sa id “Skout Kahlouch” ( “ S h u tu p N e g r o ” )

. J
. A
. a t1 8 9 ( S u p p . I- 5 8 9 S t m t
. a t2 )

. T h e o f f i c e r s h e l d S o u m ar e f

o r t w o d a ys during which he w as beaten, slapped in the f ace , stripped of his clothes a nd doused with cold water, and ca lled “blac k.” J.A. at 109 (Hr’ g Tr. at 34:1–19); J .A. at 189 (Supp. I -589 Stmt. at 2). He wa s 4 ultimately

rele ased a fter his brothe r-in-la w, a Moor, spoke to police on his behalf. Th e se c on d o f t

he inc ide nts oc c ur

re d on May 9, 20 04 . T wo po lic e of fi c e rs c a me to So u m ar e’ s workplace at A.F.R.I .T.E.L . and took him to the police station. “When the chie f g ot 5 the re [he ] g ra

bb e d me by

the ne c k a

nd tol d me that I

wa s d oin g wo rk

fo r a ba nn e d p art y and that I was still claiming that [the white Maur itanian’s] house belo ng ed to my family . Iswore that the house belong ed to my

family . He then he ld me tightly by the bac k of my

shirt, told me that he was closely watchingmy

ever y move and thre w me out the door.” J .A. at 189 (Supp. I -589 Stmt. at 2). I n h is t e sti mony

be fo re the I J, Soumare a dd e d d e ta ils that he did no t me nti on

in h is I -5 89 state me nt. Acc ording to Soumare’s testimony , the chief of police a lso forc ed him to sign something, anothe r office r hit him in t he stomach, a nd the chief threatened that he would “neve r see the sun any more.” J .A. at 119-20 (Hr’ g Tr. at 44:17–45:15). Acc ording to Soumare, af ter this incident he be g an fe aring for his life. He subsequently applied for a vis a at the U.S

. Embassy , which was g rante d on J uly 6, 2004.5

The thi rd and final i ncident occurre d on J uly 20, 2004, when Soumare returne d from wor k to find his sist er c rying a fter police dropped of f a summons order ing him to appear at the police statio n. Soumare te sti fi e d th a t hi s si ste r b e lie ve d th e su mmo ns wa s re la te d to his po lit ic a l a c tiv ity and told him that if he didn’t leave politics he “would end up like [his] fathe r . . . ar rested a nd killed.” J .A. at 116-17 ( Hr’gTr. at 41:19–42:4). Af ter hidi n g at h i s u n cle’ s house, Soumare le ft Ma ur ita nia and tr a ve le d b y

land to S e ne g a l be fo re c omi ngto t he Un ite d St a te s. On Aug ust 2, 2004, Soum are was a dmitted to the United S tates on a nonimm igr ant visitor visa that expired on Fe bruar y 1, 2005. On Fe bruar

y 3, 2005, Soumare submitted an application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, an d p rotec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture to the De p ar t m en to f H o m el an d S ec u ri t y (“ DH S ”)

. On M ar ch 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , DH S b ega n re m o v al p ro ce ed i n gs ag ainst Soumare as a

n alien who ha s rema ined i n the Unit ed S tates for a ti me l ong er than permitted. The I J held a mer its hearingon Marc h 15, 2006, at which Soumare and a long tim e friend of the family , Saidou Wane, t estified. The I J then entered an oral de cision denying Soumar e’s a pplications for r elief. F irst, the I J found Soumare “ not to be a fully cre dible witness.” J.A. at 25 (I J Dec . at 11). Whil e a c kn ow le dg ingthat So uma re ’s “ te sti mony

wa s f or the most part, de ta ile d, int e rn a lly consistent and consistent with the asylum a pplication and his state ments,” the I J not ed s ev er al discrepa ncies be tween Soumar e’s testimony and his written statements that in the “ag g reg ate” g ave him “conc ern about the overall cre dibilit y of the re spondent, at lea st on key points.” Id. The I J cited the fo llo wi nginc on sis te nc ie s:

• Soumare te sti fi e d th a t in 19 89 , whe n his f

a mil y wa s f or c ibl y re mov e d to Se ne g a l, his father and his two sisters wer e wi t h h i m . Howeve r, his written statement indicated that a brother , a sis te r, and

his fathe r w e re wi th h im.Th e I J er re d in fi nd inga n in c on sis te nc y on thi s p oin t. S ouma

re ’s state me nts c le a rl y 6 indicated that he first visited the housing a uthority on November

5, 2001, but was then told that he neede d to bring his father ’s death cer tific at e an d p ro o f of r elationship. He then r eturne d the following day , November 6, at whic h time the incident leadingto his arre st occurr ed. Consistent with these statements, Soumare testified bef ore the I J that he wa s arr ested on Nove mber 6, 2001. 6 • Sou m are testified that he sa w his father

only one time at the hospital af ter re tur nin g to M a

ur ita nia in 19 96
. Ho we ve r, in h is w ri tte n s ta te me nt S oumare sa id that he wa s able to see his father eve ry we ek from the time of the first hospital visit unt il his father’s de ath.

• Soumare testified that he visited the housing a uthority on Nov em ber 6, 2001. Ho we ve r, a c c or din g to the I J, Soumare ’s wr itt e n state me nt ind ic a ted t hat thi s visit was on November

5, 2001. 6

• Soumare te sti fi e d th a t a ft e r h is a rr e st o n N ov emb er 6, 20 01 , h e wa s f or c e d to str ip to hi s un der

we ar a nd c old wate r w a s th ro wn

on him . H ow e ve r, in h is written statement he indicated that he was stripped na ked.

• Soumare testified that water was thrown on him ea ch nig ht of the two day s he was he ld in 2001. Soumare’s written statement, however, mentioned w ater being thr ow n o n h im o nly

on c e , th e mor

nin g a ft e r h is a

rr e st, ra the r t ha n at ni g ht.

• So u m ar e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t d u r i n g h i s 2 0 0 1 ar

r e s t h e w a s h i t i n t h e s t oma c h. Hi s written statement did not indicate that he was hit in the stomach.

• Soumare testified that when he was a rre sted at his workplac e on May 9, 2004, he was ha ndcuff ed, put in t h e ca

r, and dr iven to the police station. Howe ver, Soumare ’s wr itt e n s ta te me nt i nd ic a te d th a t po lic e a sk e d h im t o f oll owthe m to the po lic e statio n, wh e re he wa s k e pt w a iti ngun til 2 p .m.

• Soumare te sti fi e d tha t an of fi c e r pun c he d him i n th e sto ma c h c a us inghim to f a ll to the floor during his detention i n 2004. Howeve r, hi s written statement did not mention being punched in the stomac h during the 2004 detention. I n his analy sis of past perse cution, the I J looked only to the 2001 and 2004 incidents a nd not the 1989 depor

tation beca

use Soumare “ returne d voluntarily to Mau ri t ania [ in 1996] , living and working in Mauritania f

or appr ox imately

eig ht y ear s, at . . . a we ll pay ing job.” J .A. at 29 (I J Dec
. at 15). The I J first conc luded that the 2001 incident was “not supported by cre dible testimony .” Id.7

I n the alter

native, the I J stated that the 2001 incident did not appea r to rise to the leve l of perse cution based on one of the prote cted g rounds, bec ause it occ urre d following Soumar e’ s arr est for a “phy sical alter cation betwe en himself and housingauthority officials.” J .A. at 30 (I J Dec . at 16). N e x t , t h e IJ f

o u n d t h a tt h e 2 0 0 4 i n c i d e n tw a s a l s o n o ts u p p o rt e d b y c r e d i b l e t e s t i m o n y. S p e c i f i c a l l y, the I J cited dis cre pancie s betwee n Soumare’s testimony and his written st atement on the details of how he wa s taken into custody . Finally , the I J found that the c orrobor ating evidenc e wa s not sufficie nt to establish Soum are ’s claim of pa st pe rsec ution. Amongother thing s, the I J explained that Souma

re sh ou ld have su

pp lie d a st a te me nt f

ro m hi s si ste r w ho wa s a

wi tne ss t o ma

ny of the se events. The I J also found it “odd” that the summons th at S o u m ar e re ceived on J uly 20, 2004, appar ently

require d him to appear

at 10 a.m. on that same day . J .A. at 33 (I J Dec . at 19). Next, the I J found that Soumare did not establish that he had a well-founde d fea

r of f uture perse cution. The I J noted that black Mauritanians, including Soninkes, ha ve held positions i n the Mauritanian g o v e r

n me n t i nr e c e n t y e ar s , th a t t h e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t m e mb e r s o f th e p o li ti c al party to w hich Soumare belong ed wer e curr ently perse cuted, and that a State Depa rtment re port indicated that the g overnme nt that took power afte r the 2005 coup had r elea sed numerous political pr iso ne rs . F ina lly , th e I J de nie d withho ldi ng of re mov a l and pr ote c tio n und e r t

he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture . Be cause Soumare had failed to show elig ibilit y for asy lum, the I J conclude d that Soumare had nec essar ily

failed to mee t the highe r burde n for withholding of re m o v al

. T h e I J also denied
re lie f u nd e r the Con ve nti on Ag a ins t Tor tur e , fin din g no e vid e nc e in the re c or d th a t So uma re wo uld be tor tur e d if re tur ne d to Ma ur ita nia and no tin g that So uma

re ’s pa st tre a tme nt did no t app e ar t o r ise to the level of tortur e.8

Soumare appea led to the BIA, which a ffirme d the I J ’s dec ision on October 22, 2007. The BIA found that the I J ’s “a dverse cre dibilit y finding , which was based on inconsistenc ies involving

ma tte rs su c h a s the natur e , c ir c ums tanc e s, and se ve ri ty of the ha rm wh ic h th e re sp on de nt a lle g e dly
su ff e re d, is s up po rt e d b y

the re c or d. ” J.A. at 6 (BI A Dec. a t 1) . Ci tin g the a bs e nc e of c re dib le testimony , the B IA conc luded that Soumare did not ade quately demonstrate pa st p er secution or a
we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rse cut io n. I n s um, the B I A s ta te d th a t “ [i]na smu c h a s w e are in ag ree ment with the I mmigration J udg e’s de cision, we a ffirm his dec ision based up o n an d for the
rea sons set forth there in.” J .A. at 7 (B I A Dec
. at 2). Finally , the BIA reje cted Soumare’s claim on

a pp e a l that his du e -p ro c e ss ri g hts ha d be e n vio la te d be c a us e the I J e nte re d a “ parti al a dv e rs e
cre dibilit y

finding ” that was not suppor ted by the rec ord, and be cause the re cord c ontained numer ous

“ ind isc e rn ibl e s” that pr e ve nte d a de qu a te a pp e llate re vie w. Th e B I A e xpla ine d that the “ the e le me nts noted by the I mmigration J udg e in support of the ‘par tial’ adver se credibility finding are sufficie nt to constitute an adve rse c redibility finding for this proce eding .” Id. Souma r e ti me ly f

il e d th is p e ti ti o n f

o r r e v ie w , ar g u in g , a mo n g o th e r th in g s , th at any discrepa ncies be tween his wr itten statement and his testimony do not go to the he art of the matter. S o u m ar e a l s o ar g u e s , a l b e i tp e r f u n c t o r i l y , t h a th i s d

u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e t h e IJ d e n i e d a s yl u m b a s e d o n a “ p art i a l l y” a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . S o u m ar e B r . a t 2 2
. F i n a l l y, citing the numerous “indiscer nible” notations in the rec ord, Soumare sug g ests that the re cord ma y be inade quate f

or appe llate re view.9 II. AN AL YSI S A. As ylu m Cl aim Th e Attor ne y Ge ne ra l ma

y g ra nt a sylum to a “ re fu g e e ,” de fi ne d a s a pe rs on “ wh o is un a

ble or unwilling to re turn to” hi s country “bec ause of perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution
on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A). I n order to establish r efug ee status, a n applicant must show either pa st persec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). “ The testimony of the a pplicant may

be suff icient to sustain the applicant’ s burden without corrobor ation, bu t on ly if the a pp lic ant s a tis fi e s th e tr ie r o f f a c t th a t th e a

pp lic ant’ s te sti mony

is c re dib le , is persua sive, and re fer s to specific f acts suff icient to demonstrate that the applicant is a r efug ee.” 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )( B )( ii) . “ ‘[W]he re it i s r e a so na ble to e xpe c t c or

ro bo ratin g e vid e nc e fo r c e rt a in alleg ed fa cts perta ining to the s pecif ics of an applicant’ s claim, s uch evidence should be provided.

. . . T he a bs e nc e of su c h c or

ro bo ratin g e vid e nc e c an le a d to a fi nd ingthat an a

pp lic ant h a s f

a ile d to meet her burden of

proof.’ ” Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 8 F. 3 d

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 . & N . Dec . 722, 724-26 (B .I .A. 1997)). We reviewadver se cr edibility finding s under the f

ollowing standa

rd: Credibility

deter minations are considered f indings of f

act, a nd are revie wed under the substantial evidence standard. Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 (6th Cir. 20 04 ). Th is i s a

de fe re nti a l st and ard : A re vie wi ng c ourt sh ou ld n ot r e ve rs e “ sim

ply beca use it is convince d that it would have dec ided the ca se diffe rently .” Klawi tter v . I NS , 970 F.2d 149, 151-52 (6th Cir. 1992) (interna l c itations omitted). Whil e an adver se cr edibility

finding is affor ded substantial def ere n ce , t he finding must be supported by specific rea sons. Se e Da ne sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 3 55 F .3 d 6 15 , 6 23 n. 7 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) ; Ga o v . A sh c ro

ft , 299 F.3d 266, 276 (3d Cir. 2002) (“The rea sons must be su bs tan ti al and

be ar a le g iti ma te ne xus to the fi nd ing .” ). An a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty finding must be based on issues that g o to the heart of the applica nt’s claim. They “ca nnot be base d on an irre levant inconsistency .” Daneshv ar , 355 F.3d a t 6 19 n.2The REAL I D Act of

2005, Pub. L . 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, amended the standar d for 7 cre dibilit y

deter minations to provide that a trier of fac t may make a cr ed i b i l i ty

deter mination “without reg ard to whe ther a n inconsistency , inacc urac y , or fa l s eh o o d g oes to the hea rt of the a pp lic ant’ s cla im. ” 8 U.S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( iii ); see Am ir v. Gonzales , 46 7 F .3 d 92 1, 92 5 n. 4 ( 6th Cir. 2006). This chang e applies only to asy lum ap p l i ca n t s wh o file for relief on or af ter May 11, 2005. Be cause Soumare applied for asylum on Fe bruar y 3, 2005, the cha

ng e does not a

pply , and the a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

fi nd ingmus t be ba se d o n is su e s th a t g o to the he art of his c la im. 10 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . “I f dis c re pa nc ie s ‘c ann ot be vie we d as atte mpt s by the a pp lic ant t o enhanc e his claims of pe rsec ution, they have no bear ing on c redibility .’” Id. at 623 (q u o t i n g Sh ah v . I

NS , 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 ( 9th Cir. 2000)). Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925- 26 (6th Cir. 2004). “While it is true that irreleva nt inconsistencies 7 cannot c onstitut e the ba sis for an a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination, discrepanc ies may be re levant if they can be viewed a s attempts by the applica

nt to enhance his claims of per secution.” Ndrecaj v. Muk asey , 522 F.3d 667, 674- 75 (6th Cir. 2008) (int erna l quotation marks and c itations omi tted). When, as here , the BI A adopts the re asoning of the I J ’s opinion but makes additional comments, we revie w the I J ’s dec ision but also consider the additional comments of the BIA. Elias v. Gonzales , 490 F.3d 444, 449 (6th Cir. 2007). Although severa l of t he dis cre pancie s identified by the I J do not g o to the heart of t he matter and cannot support an adverse cre dibilit y finding , we be lieve that the discrepan ci es re lated to Soumare’ s arr ests in 2001 and 2004 do g o to the hear t of the matter a

nd support the conc lusion of the I J and B I A that Soumare is not cr edible. First, Soumare testified bef ore the I J that he wa s punched in the stomac h by p o l i ce during his detention in 2001 and ag ain during hi s detention i n 2004. Howeve r, Soumare’ s I -589 statement failed to mention this fac t, even thoug h it provided specif ic details about other

mistr ea t m ent alleg edly suffe red by

Soumare duringthe 2001 and 2004 de tentions. Bec ause be ing hit in the stomach would have been the most ser ious phy sical abuse suf fer ed by Soumare duringhis detentions in 2001 and 2004 and be cause S o u mare ’s claim of pe rsec ution depends larg ely on the abuse he11

suffe red dur ing those detentions, we cannot say that the I J clea rly err ed in finding these omissions to b e su bs tan ti al di sc re pa

nc ie s th a t g o to the he art of Soumare ’s a sylum

c la im. Al tho ug h th e se discrepan ci es are omissions rathe r than a ffirmative inconsistencies, these omissions are

“ su bs tanti a lly

re la te d to [Sou mare ’s ] as y lum c la im” and

the re fo re may

su pp or t an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination. Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 637 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Second, S o u m ar e provide d inconsistent acc ounts of the circ umstances of his ar re s t i n 2004. Wherea s Soumare testified that police handc uffe d him and drove him to the pol ice station, his written statement asse rted that police

m e r e l y a s k e d h i m t o f

o l l o w t h e m t o t h e s t a t i o n . A l t h o u g h t h e r e m ay b e s o m e c on c e iva ble explanation for t h i s d i s cr epanc y , a re asonable adjudicator could find that this is a signific ant discrepa ncy that g oes to the hea

rt of the matter

. “W hi le an adv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd inga lon e wi ll n ot d e fe a t a c la im f or a sylum , it

wi ll undermine a

claimant’s e ffor

ts to meet his burden of pr oof—par ti cu l ar l y when the c laimant
rea sonably

could have prese nted, but did not prese nt, c orrobor ating evidenc e to support the cla im.” Vuktilaj v. Mukase

y , 277 F. App’ x 545, 5 4 9 (6 t h C i r. 2008) ( unpublished). The I J found that Soumare rea sonably could have prese nted a statement from his sist er, w ho was a witness to many of the e vents to which Soumare testified. On the re cord be fore us, we c annot find support for the I J ’s finding that a cor

roborating state ment from Soumare ’s sister wa s rea sonabl y available. The
rec ord doe s n o t s h o w , f

o r in s ta n c e , w h e th e r

So u ma r e h a s r e c e iv e d

s u p p o rti n g d o c u me n ts from Mauritania in the mail or whether he has rema ined in contac t with his si ster or othe r family members since a rriving in t h e United States. Se e Do ro sh , 398 F.3d at 383 (upholding c orrobor ation
re qu ir e me nt w he re pe tit ion e r remai ned in c on ta c t w ithmot he r i n c ountr

y of or ig in b ut f

a ile d to ob ta in a ff ida vit fr om h e r) ; Vuktilaj , 277 F. App’ x a t 5 5 0 ( u p h o ld in g c o r r o b oration re quirement whe re12

petitioner had r ece ived documents from country of orig in, had cousin who ha d visited country twice since pe tit i o n er’s arr ival in United States, and had obta ined documents fr om that country afte r
arr iving in United States). I n light of the I J ’s adverse credibility deter mination, howeve r, we conclude that substantial evidenc e supports the I J ’s finding that Soumare fa iled sufficie ntly to corr oborate his claim. Soumare submitt ed the testimony

of a family friend and sever al documents, including identification ca rds, a statement fr om the S ecr etar y Gene ral of the Action for Chang e (“ AC”) pa

rty conce rning Soumare’s particip at i o n in that gr oup, his father ’s death cer tificate, a nd a medica l cer

tificate doc umenting treatment for the injuries he allege dly suffe red during his detention i n 2001. Although the I J found that th e re c or d “c on ta in[e d] some us e fu l c or ro bo ratio n o n s ome po int s, ” the I J con c lud e d th a t th is evidenc e wa s insufficient to establish Soumare’ s claim. J .A. at 31 (I J Dec . at 17). The s tatement from the Ge nera l Secre tary of the AC par

ty , dated July

8, 1998, stated that Soumare was ofte n the vic timof arb itr ary br uta lity and ha ra ssm ent fro m po lic e and po lit ic a l of

fi c ia ls b e c a

us e of his involv e me n t i nth e A C p arty
. H o w e v e r , th e I J q u e s ti o n e d th e v e r a c it

y o f th is d o c u me n t be cause , acc ording to Soumare’s own te stimony , it was not until 2001 t hat he wa s subjected to mistreatment by the police be cause of his political a ctivities. The I J did not question the authenticity of Soumare’ s fathe r’s de ath ce rtificate or of Soum are’s 2001 medica l cer tificate, but found that eac h lacke d sufficie nt detail to meaning fully advanc e Soumare ’s claim. The death c ertificate did not state the
c a us e of Soumare ’s fa

ther ’s de a th, and

the me dic a l c e rt if

ic a te “ did

no t c on ta in a

ny sp e c if ic information on the ty

pe of treatment [Soumare] was g iven or the ty pe of mistreatment which le[d] to the medical tre atment.” J.A. at 32 (I J Dec . at 18).13

I n sum, beca

use the re cord doe s not compel us to rea ch a c onclus i o n contra ry to the I J ’s adverse cr edibility

finding , we must conc lude that Soumare ha s not met his burden to prove elig ibilit y for a sy lum. Bec ause w e af fi rm t h e I J ’s finding s reg ardingSoumare’s e ligibility for asylum, Soumare nece ssarily cannot meet the “more stringe nt sta ndard” for e stablishing a c laim of withholding of r emoval. Liti , 41 1 F .3 d a t 64 1 (i nte rn a l qu otatio n mark s omi tte d) . F ina lly , b e c a us e
no cre dible evidenc e in the record demonstrates that Soumare “‘more likely than not . . . would be tortured if r emoved to” Ma uritania, he also ca n n o t establish entitlement to relief unde r the Convention Ag ainst Torture. Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2))

. B. Due-P roce ss Claim Regar din g “P artial” Adver se Cr edibil ity Det erm ination I n a se c tio n o f h is b ri e f o n a pp e a l tha t ot

he rw ise a dd

re sse s th e I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination, Soumare makes a cur sory ref ere nce to a

due-pr ocess violation. See Soumare B r. at 22 (“The I mmigration Judge

. . . violat[ ed] .

. . Petitioner’s Due Process rig hts w hen he ma de what he cha rac terized [as] a par

tially adver se cr edibility

deter mination. A denial of a sy lum relief ba sed
o na p arti a ll y a d v e r s e c r e d ib il it

y d e te r mi n a ti o nis a

n o v e l f in d in g w h ic h is n o t s u

p p o rte d b y any asylum law.”). B eca

use this issue was ra ised in a cur sory m an n er without any

citation or development of argument, we deem the issue waived. S ee Un i t ed S tates v. Sandridge , 385 F.3d 10 32 , 1 03 5 ( 6th Cir

. 20 04 ) (“ I ssu e s a dv e rt e d to in a pe rf un c tor y mann e r, un a c c omp anie d b y so me eff ort at deve loped argumentation, are deeme d waived.” (interna l quotation marks omitted)). I n any event, a lthough the I J found Soumare pa rtially cre dible, with reg ard to pe titioner’s c r u c ia l e ncounter s wi th M a ur ita nia n a uth or iti e s, the I J fou

nd that So uma

re ’s te sti mony

wa s f a ta lly dis c re pa nt.14

C. Adequacy of Record Finally , Soumare a lleg es t hat t he numerous “indiscer nibles” in the transc ript of his hear ing be fo re the I J re nd e r t

he re c or d in a de qu a te fo r a pp e llate re vie w. Soumare do e s n ot c le arl y art ic ulate a leg al theory

for his cla im, but si mply cites t he st atutory provision and re g ulations providing that

a c o mp l e t e r e c o r d m u s t b e k e p t o f r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . S o u m ar e B r. a t 35 ; s ee 8 U .S. C. § 1229a(b) (4)( C) (“[A] complete rec ord shall be kept of all testimony and evidence produce d at the proce eding .”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5(a ) (pr oviding that, when ther e is an a ppeal, the I J shall forwa

rd the
re c or d t o the B I A u

po n r e qu e st) ; 8 C .F .R. § 1 24 0. 9 ( pr ov idi ngthat th e he ari ngbe fo re the I J sha ll g ener ally be re corde d verbatim). Ty pically , howe ver, suc h claims are raised a s proce dural-due

p ro cess violations. See, e .g. , Garza-More no v. Gonzales , 4 8 9 F
. 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 1

- 4 2 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ). Ac co rd ingly , we a ssume that Soumare is asser ting a due-pr ocess c halleng e base d upon the inadequa cy

of the re cord. “W e re v i ew de novo alleg ed due pr ocess violations in immi g ration proc eeding s.” G a r z aMoreno , 4 8 9 F
. 3 d a t 2 4 1
. T o s u c c e e d o n a d u e p r o c e s s c h a ll e n g e to r e mo v a l p r o c e e d in g s, the petitioner must show both “ err or and substantial pre judice.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). An er ror in the pr ocee dings doe s not render the proc eeding s constitutionally defe ct ive unless the
err or “might have led to a denial of justice.” Id. (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mit te d) . We pr e vio us ly have e xpre sse d “ ‘c on c e rn that th e g ov e rnme nt f

a ile d to me e t it s o bli g a tio n [un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1229a(b) (4)( C)] t o prepa re a rea sonably acc urate and complete rec ord of the removal he aring .’” Garza-More no , 4 8 9 F. 3 d at 2 4 1 (q u o t i n g Sterkaj v. G onzales , 439 F.3d 273, 279 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). Howeve r, “a

mere failure of transc ription, by itself, do es n o t ri s e t o a due pr ocess violation.” Id. (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mit te d) . Ins te ad, the p e tit ion e r m us t sh ow“ sp e c if

ic pr e jud ic e to h isI n the same se c tio n of his br ie f, Soumare c on te nd s that the I J f a ile d to make cre dib ili ty 8 deter minations as to all of the supporting evid ence submitted by Soumare. Soumare does not advanc e a distinct leg al theory for this argument, and it appea rs to be a r epac kag ed cha lleng e to the I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n. As e xpla ined above , th e I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingis supported by

substantial evidence . Moreove r, S oumare fails t o identify any specific evidenc e that the I J alleg edly disreg arde d. The I J g ave a detailed explanation of his a dverse cre dib i l i t y fi n d ing r e g ar d i n g t h e d i s c r e p an c i e s b e t w e e nS o u m ar e ’ s t e s t i m o n y an d w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s . S i m i l ar l y , t h e IJ provided a

detailed e valuation of the c orrobor ating documentar y evidenc e subm itted by

Soumare, explaining the we ight g iven to various docume nts and his rea sons for concluding that this evidence wa s in su ff

ic ie nt t o e sta

bli shSoumare ’s a sylum

c la im. 15 ability to perf ect a n appea l.” Id. at 2 4 2 (i n t ern al qu o t at i o nm ar k s o m i t t ed ). S o u m ar e c i t es t h e l ar ge number of “ indiscernibles” in the hear ing transcr ipt, but he does not identify particula r fa cts missing from the tra

nscript that would support his applications, nor does he point to a sing le ar g ument that he wa s una

ble to m a ke be fo re the B I A o r t his c ourt be c a us e of th e in c omp le te tr ans c ri pt. I n s um, be c a us e Soumare ha s n ot i de nti fi e d h owthe “ ind isc e rn ibl e s” in t he he ari ngtr ans c ri pt p re

jud ic e d h is ability to perfe ct an a

ppeal, we conclude that Souma r e h a s not demonstrated a

due-pr ocess violation. 8 III . C ON CL USI ON For these re asons, we DENY the petition for re view.Be cause the discre pancie s are rec oncilable, I ag ree with the majority

that we should decline 1 to g ra nt p e tit ion e r’ s a lte rn a tiv e re qu e st t hat w e re man d d

ue to t he pr e se nc e of

“ ind isc e rn ibl e s” throug hout the transcr ipt of t he hearing befor e the I J
. Although some of the fa ilures in transcr iption occur at important moments in the hear ing, the transcr ipt shows enoug h for me to rea liz e that ther e i s n o c o n t r a d i c t i o nb e t w e e nt h e w r i t t e ns t a t e m e n t s an d t h e h e ar i n g t e s t i m o n y. 16 TARNOW, Distric t Judge, diss enting. I dis se nt, be c a us e I be lie ve that the I J’s ad verse
cre dibilit y

deter mination was not supported by sub stantial evidenc e, and be cause Irema in convinced that So uma

re ha s sh ow n th a t he su ff

e re d p e rs e c uti on

in t he pa st. I. Adv e r se c r e dibil it y findi ng The I J focuse d on minor discrepa ncies be tween the written statement a nd the hea

ring testimony , which ar e not inexpli cably inconsistent: th e two ar e re concilable

. And bec ause othe r 1 evidenc e cor

roborates Soumare’ s testimony , any rea sonable a djudicator would be compe lled to find that Soumare wa s cre dible. Se e Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F .3 d at 70 3 ( in r e vie wi ngan a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty finding , courts re verse only if any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry ). A. 20 01 Ar r e st The fir st discrepa

ncy is that Soum are testified that he was hit in the stomach duringthe 2001

arr est, but his written statement did not mention this fac t. As the I J explained, “his written statement simply talked about be ing g rabbe d by the shirt and thrown out the door, and did not indicate that he was struc k in the stomach on that occ asion, nor phy sically abused in any other wa y other than be ing doused with the water.” J .A. at 27 (I J Dec . at 13). B u t t h e f a i l u r e t o m e n t i o nt h e s t o m a c h p u n c h i nt h e s t a t e m e n ti s n o tani n c o n s i s t e n c y: Soumare (o r h is tra

ns la tor ) c ou ld h a ve jus t mi sta ke nly omi tted th e st oma c h p un c h f ro m hi s
s t a t e m e n t
. T h e r e i s a

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e nano m i s s i o nan d ani r r e c o n c i l i a b l e i n c o n s i s t e n c y.17

Moreove r, this is not an omiss ion that, along w it h the other r eleva

nt omissi ons, is “signific ant enoug h to support an adve rse c redibility deter mination.” Mec e v. G onzales , 41 5 F .3 d 56 2, 57 3 ( 6th Cir. 2005). This is so, beca use S oumare provided an examining doctor’s statement, which shows that the petitioner ha d s u ff ere d “injuries due to violent tre atment while in prison” a fter the 2001
arr est. See J .A. at 265. This doctor’ s statement corro b o ra t es Soumare’ s testimony that he wa s punched. T hus, there is an independe nt rea son to believe Soumare’s testim ony , which minimiz es t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e nt h e a s yl u m - a p p l i c a t i o ns t a t e m e n tan d

t h e t e s t i m o n y. Tho u g h the g overnme nt reg ards the doc tor’s note a s merely a for m medical stateme nt, Ireje ct such a c hara cter ization. The state ment is dated within a fe w day s of Soumare’ s 2001 arr est. Ther e is n o b a sis fo r s us pe c tin g tha t su c h a c on te mpo ra

ne ou s st a te me nt, of

fe re d b y a do c tor a ff ili a te d w ith the hea lth mini stry

of the Maur itanian g overnme nt, no less, is unrel i ab l e. An d althoug h the statement does not spec ifically outline what petitioner’s injuries w ere , the fa c t t h at Soumare r ece ived
me dic a l a tte nti on

and tha t th e do c tor

sa id t hat th e inj ur ie s w e re “ du e to v iol e nt t re a tme nt w hil e in pr iso n” sp e a k to the se ri ou sn e ss o f S oumare ’s inj ur ie s. On e la st p oin t a

bo ut t he 20 01 arr e st. Th e re ma ini ng , r e le vant ele me nts we re c on sis te ntl y rende red both in the wr itten stat em en t an d i n t he testimony befor e the I J . Both the state ment and Soumare’s te stimony

explain that S ou m ar e was slapped in the fa ce by the police c hief. B oth the state me nt an d tes tim on y sh ow that Souma re wa s att e mpt ingto r e c la im h is f a mil y ho me , th e same home that hi s fathe r had tried t o rec laim and for which his fathe r was beaten so se vere ly that he died soon after war ds. The evidenc e compels the conclusion that it wa s not me rely a housing dispute or

a di st urb ance of

the pe a c e that r e su lte d in Soumare ’s arr e st. Ra the r, the re c or d is inf us e d w ith evidenc e that the a

rre st and subsequent a

buse occ urre d beca

use Soumare, a s a bl ack Ma uritanian,18

was attempting to asser

t rig hts that gove rnment off icials wante d to deny . Both the w ritten statement and the testimony

indicate that Soumare was rele ased only afte r the interve ntion of his brother-inlaw, a White Moor. B. 2 00 4 A r r e st Th e oth e r t

wo re le va nt dis c re pa

nc ie s re la te to Sou mare ’s 20 04 arr e st at his wo rk pla c e . F ir st, the I J note d th a t, a s w iththe 20 01 inc ide nt, Soumare te sti fi e d to be inghit in t he sto ma c h d

ur ingthi s incident, but did not mention thi s fac t in his statement. Her e ag ain, this discr epanc y does not mean that the written stateme nt and testimony are inconsistent. The discr epanc y simply indicates that the detail about the 2004 stomach punc h was omitted. Soumare g ave a n explanation for this omiss ion: he thoug ht that the t ranslator wrote in the asy lum-application st atement all of the details Soumare repor ted. See J
. A
. a t1 3 2 ( IJ H r g . a t 5 7 ) ( “ I t h o u g h t t h e p e r s o n w h o w a s w r i t i n g e v e r y d e t a i l

. ” )

. In view of the internal c onsistency of most of Soumare’s testimony , acknow ledg ed even by the I J , as well as the corr oboration of the 2001 incide nt, a re asonable fac t-finder would have to c onclude that missin g d e ta il s a

b o u t S o u ma

r e ’ s p h y s ic a l t

r e a tm e n t d

u r in g th e 2 0 0 4 ar

r e s t d o n o t g iv e r is e to the conclusion that t his omiss ion is significa nt enoug h to support an adve rse c redibility deter mination. B e sid e s, the g ist of bo th the wr itt e n state me nt a nd the te sti mony

is that th e po lic e ba

rg e d in to Soumare’s w orkplac e two and a half y ear s after

his 2001 arre st at t he housi ng authority , ang ry that pe tit ion e r wo rk e d fo r a ba nn e d po lit ic a l pa

rt y , wh ic h a g itate d fo r the ri g hts of bla c k M a ur ita nia ns . Hi s wr itt e n state me nt ind ic a te s that the po lic e we re sti ll ann oy e d in 20 04 a t hi s atte mpt s to re c la im the family home from a

Whit e Moor. Give n either of these re asons, the point is that Soum are was
arr ested for

his work asser

ting the r ights due to himself or others as black Ma uritanians. While the detail about beingpunched in the stomac h is omit ted from the written statement’s narr ation of theThe I J found it odd that the summons wa s delivere d on the day that Soumare wa s to appea r. 2 We nor, we suspe ct, the I J has any knowledg e of police proce dure in Mauritania. There is no reason to d isb e lie ve the a

uth e nti c ity

of the su mmo ns . 19 2004 arres t , t h e key

elements of the event a

re intac t: that he was a

rre sted on ac count of his ra ce,
e t h n i c i t y, o r

p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y. Se c on d, the I J no te d a disc re pa nc y be tw e e n Soum are ’s a c c ount of the c ir c ums tanc e s o f h is 20 04 arr e st i n h is t e sti mony and in h is s tatem ent
. S oumare te sti fi e d th a t w he n p oli c e c a me to h is workplac e on May

9, 2004, they handcuf

fed him, put him in the car, and then drove him to t he police station. Howeve r, in his written statement, S oumare said that the police simply asked him to follow them to the pol ice station, wher e he was kept waiting until 2 p.m. Thi s differ ence in narration does not present a

n inconsistency . I t is e ntirely conce ivable that the police appr oache d Soumare, orde red him to follow t h em t o t h e st ation, and subseque ntly handcuf fed him and dr ove him to the station. There is n o r e a s o n

to p r e s u me anin c o n s is te n c y b e tw e e nth e w r itte ns tate me n t a n d So u ma r e ’s t e s t i m o n y. I n sum, g iven t hat om issions from the written st atement are ex plainable or irrele vant, the I J ’s fac tual deter

mination — that Soumare was not c redible — is not supported by substantial evidence

. Rather, pe titioner’s testimony should have be en cr edited. As fo r p e tit ion e r’ s f

a ilure to p ro vid e a

c or ro bo ra tin gstate me nt f

ro m hi s si ste r, Ia g re e wi th the majority

and would not find his failure to do so problematic. The question is not sol ely whether
corr oborating evidenc e is re asonably available , but whether

it is reasonably

expected. B eca

use I believe t hat petitioner is cr edible and, in c ontrast to the majority ’s view, ha s alrea dy been
c o r r o b o r a t e d b y o t h e r e v i d e n c e —

s u c h a s t h e d o c t o r ’ s s t a t e m e n t , t h e J u l y 2 0 0 4 s u m m o n s , h i s p a rt y- 2Th e pa y stu b c or ro bo rate s So uma

re ’s te sti mo ny

that he he ld a

we ll- pa y ingjob in 3 telecommunications. This bolster s the court’ s conclusion that he f led Mauritania

due to per secution, not merely

to seek a better e conomic life. 20 membership ca

rd, his fathe r’s de ath ce rtificate , his pa y stub from AFRI TEL , and the testimony of 3 his friend, Saidou Wane — a statement from Soumare ’s sister wa s not nece ssary , espec ially wher e such a state ment would nece ssarily be of limit ed corroborative value, given that it would have bee n g e ne rate d s ole ly

fo r t he purp os e of

be ne fi tti nghe r b ro the r’ s a sylum c la im. II. P ast P erse cution Iag ree that wer e Soumare ’s testimony not to be cre dited, petitioner’s other evidenc e alone — without test i m o n y

to put that other evidenc e in context — would not suffice to show that he suffe red pa st perse cution. But because Ibelieve that the adver se cr edibility finding was unsupporte d by substantial evidence , the ot her e vidence streng thens my belief that petitioner has shown that he suffe red pa st pe rsec ution due to the 2001 and 2004 arr ests. Iwould adjudicate the merits of whe ther S o u m ar e su ff

er ed p as tp er s ec u t i o nn o t wi t h s t an d i n g Pergega v. Gonzales , 4 17 F .3 d 6 23 , 6 30 –3 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5) (r e mand ingto B I A a ft e r r e ve rs inga dv e rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n) , b e c a

us e the B I A i n Pergega based its dec ision “solely on [t he asy lum applicant’ s] lack of cre dibilit y .” I n our ca se, on the contra ry , the I J did offer

an alter native basis for finding that Soumare fa iled to meet his burden of showing past perse cution. I n my opinion, we there fore alre ady have a dminist rative a ction in the first instance f

or us to revie w on a substantial-e vidence standard. Acc ording to the I J , even assuming all of Soumare’s testimony to be cr edible, the tre atment he desc ribed did not constitute perse cution on acc ount of one of t h e p ro t ected g rounds under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A). Discussing Soum are ’s 2001 arr est and subsequent abuse by police, the I J sug g e ste d th a t th e in cid ent a ro se ou t of

an a lte rc a tio n b e tw e e n So uma re and ho us inga

uth or ity21

of f ic ia ls r a th e r th an o n a c c o u n t o f a p r o te c te d g r o u n d

. I h a v e a lr e a dy d is c u s s e d w h y such an interpre tat i on of the 2001 a rre st is contrary

to the rec ord. In his written statement, Soumare emphasizes that he met with re sistance o n ac co u n t o f his race . Even a s he wa s arr ested in 2004, some two and a

half y ear s later, the police man cite d S oumare ’s claim to the fa mily home as he g rabbe d Soumare’s ne ck. This was not mer ely a prope rty

dispute. Ne xt, th e I J indi c a te d th a t he did no t be lie ve that th e tr e a tme nt S oumare re c e ive d d ur inghis 2001 arr est rose to the le vel of pe rsec ution. J .A. at 30 (I J Dec. at 1 6 ). Bu t being arr ested a nd phy sically

harme d to a deg ree that war rants medica l attention on acc ount of one’s r ace is enoug h for perse cution. III. Well-F ound ed F ear of F uture P erse cution Ha d S o u m ar e shown that he suffer ed past pe rsec ution, he would have be en entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he also has a well-f ounded fe ar of

future pe rsec ution. He rn an dezBa rre ra v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 73 F .3 d 9 , 2 1 ( 1s t Cir . 2 00 4) . H e c ou ld a lso have a tte mpt e d to ind e pe nd e ntl y show that he ha s a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution, apar t f rom the presumption he is entitled to. Id. Given the lapse in t ime since Soumare ’s testimony befor e the I J , it is not rea sonable to say whether Soumare has independe ntly established a well-founde d fea r of future persec ution. We do not know, for inst ance , whether the gover nment officia ls who t hreatened him with death, or other officia ls w ith similar animus towar ds black Maur itanians or Soumare in particular on acc ount of a protec ted g round, ar e still in power, or whe ther c ontinued political act i v i t y o n behalf of blac k Mauritanians w o u ld subject him to persec ution. Accor dingly , Ionly maintain that Soumare ha s provisionally

established his elig ibilit y for asylum ba sed on his de monstration of past per secution. Iwo uld have re mand e d to the B I A a nd ult imate ly

to a dif fe re nt I J, fo r c on side rat ion in t he fi rs t22

instance of

whether the g overnme nt can r ebut the pre sumption t hat Soumare ha s a we ll-founded f ear of futur e p e r s e c u ti o n . Wh e r e an I J h a s e r r o n e o u s ly f

o u n d th a t an a

p p li c an t is n o t c r e d ib le , the appea ranc e of f airne ss require s that the ca se be a ssigne d to a new I J on rema nd. Inote, thoug h, the unpersua siveness of many of the rea sons that f ormed the basis for the I J ’s conclusion that Soumare f ailed to show a well-re asoned fea r of future perse cution if he is re moved to Mauritania. F or example, the I J noted that black Ma uritanians, including Soninkes, had pa rt ic ipate d in

the Ma ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt i n r e c e nt y e ars . J.A . at 33 (I J De c . at 19 ). B ut s ome parliame ntary

repr esentation for black Ma uri t anians doe s not rebut Soumare’ s experience , particula rly g iven the J uly

2004 summons, where the police thre atening ly war ned Soumare ’s sister that he should “lea

ve the politics

. . . or . . . would end up like [hi s] fathe r.” J.A. at 116 (I J Hrg . at 41). Thoug h the I J found no evidenc e in the re cord indicating that membe rs of the political pa rties in which Soumare ha s participate d wer e cur rently being perse cuted in Maur itania, J .A. at 33 (I J Dec
. at 19), the A C party

rema ined banne d afte r the 2005 coup under the transitional g overnme nt. J .A. at 167 (U.S. De p’t of State 2005 Country Report on Human Rig hts Practices: Maur itania at 6). A nd the hea d of the PPA, to which Soumare most rec ently belong ed, is the same pe rson who led the A C p art y. De sp ite the I J’s o bs e rv a tio n th a t “ the ne w l e a de r w ho too k o ve r a ft e r the blo od le ss c ou p in 200 5 h a s r e le a s e d

n u me r o u s p o li ti c a l p r is o n e r s in th a t c o u n tr

y , ” J. A
. at 3 3

- 3 4 ( I J D e c . a t 1 9

- 2 0 ), Soumare te sti fi e d th a t “ [m]y on ly se c ur ity the re , it wa s my br oth e r- in- law, wh o wa s p ro te c tin g me most of the time. I f he’ s not around . . . they can come and take me, I would disappea r in a minute.” J .A. at 136–37 (I J Hrg . at 61–62).23

Iobserve that, in order to e stablish a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution, Soum are does
no t ne e d e vid e nc e sh ow ingthat me mbe rs of hi s eth ni c g ro up (S on ink e ) o r b la c k M a ur ita nia ns in g ener al or the party to w hich he belong s (PPA/APP ) are targ eted for pe rsec ution in Mauritania on

a wi de sp re a d b a sis . N or

is the pr e su mpt ion of

a we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

ne c e ssa ri ly rebutted by

the fa ct that ref

ug ees from the 1989- 91 crisis (in which Soumare ’s family was de ported) continued to re turn to Mauritania f rom Seneg al, wit h m an y

ref ug ees a ble to rec laim their orig inal ho me s a nd land . J.A . at 16 8 ( U. S. De p’ t of State 20 05 Countr y Re po rt on Human Ri g hts Pr a c tic e s: Mauritania at 7). What matters is an examination, subjectively an d o b j ectively , of Soumare’ s situation. Se e C or ado v. Ashc ro ft , 384 F.3d 945, 947 ( 8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (a “ specific , c re dib le , imme diate thr e a t of de a th” on a c c ount of a pr ote c te d g ro un d can be “ pe rs e c uti on ” e ve n if
o n ly a s in g le in c id e n t o c c u r s), cited in Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 285 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (per
c ur iam) ; J.A . at 28 8 ( Or ig ina l I -5 89 ) ( “ Ife ar p hy sic a l a bu se by the natio na l po lic e be c a us e of my past encounte rs with them and bec ause I left without authorization. The authorities are still looking for me in Nouakchott (Ma uritania).” ) (e mphasis added)

. I n the end, thoug h, Iwould leave it to the BIA and the I J to consider whe ther the g overnme nt
can r ebut the pre sumption of a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. L ike wi se , I

wo uld have re mand e d So uma

re ’s wi thh old ing -o f- re mov a l c la ims

.