NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3001

___________ S E KOU OU M AR OU KOI T A, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on ForR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 096- 207- 074 I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es H oneym an

___________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 28, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 29, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerSekou O um ar ou K oi t a, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M al i , ent er ed the U ni t ed S t a t e s i n 2 0 0 0 wi th o u tb e i n g a d mi t t e d o rp a r o l e d . ( He u s e d a f r a u d u l e n tp a s s p o r t . ) On N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , the D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity(" D H S ") iss u e d a N o tice to2

A p p e a r (" N T A ") , ch a rg in g th a t h e w a s re m o v a b le p u rsu a n t to Im m ig ra tio n & N a tio n a lity A ct( “I N A ”) § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , as an al i en pr es enti n the Un i t e d S t a t e s wi th o u tb e i n g a d mi t t e d o rp a r o l e d . T h e a l l e g a t i o n s we r e c o n c e d e d . On J a n u a ry1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , Ko i t a , th r o u g h c o u n s e l , f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m u n d e rI NA § 2 0 8 (a ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a ), w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 1 (b )( 3 ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 ), an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re, 8 C . F . R . § § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c), 1208. 18, i n w hi ch he c l ai m ed thathe w as per s ecut ed i n M al i on the bas i s of hi s pol i t i cal o p i n i o n . K o i t a l a t e rw i th d r e w h i s a s yl u m a p p l i c a t i o n b e c a u s e i tw a s u n t i m e l y. D uri ng the m eri t s heari ng held on F ebruary14 , 20 08 , K oit a t est i fi ed thathe w as a Secr et aryof the A s s oci at i on of Pupi l s and Student s of M al i ( “A E E M ”) , a s tudent or gani zat i on atthe Facul t é des Sci ence s J ur i di ques etE conomi ques ( partof the U ni ver s i tyof B amako) , a publ i c uni ver s i ty . K oi t a att ended the uni ver s i tyforaboutfi ve m onths fr om N ovember , 1999 t o M ar ch, 2000, and he hope d t o become a l aw y er . A s one of fi ve Secr et ar i es i n A E E M , K oi t a s erved as a l i ai s on betw een the s tudent s and or gani zat i on l eade r s . D ur i ng the r el evantt i m e per i od, J anuary , 2000, thr ough M ar ch, 2000, A E E M compl ai ned t o the governm entthatt eac her s w er e notbei ng pai d and s tudent s w er e notr ece i vi ng s t i pends forbooks and s uppl i es . T he governm entw as unr es pons i ve and A E E M cal l ed fora s tr i ke. Shor t l yaft erthe s tr i ke bega n i n M ar ch, 2 0 0 0 , K o ita f

le d to N ig e r a n d e v e n tu a lly c a m e to th e U n ite d S ta te s . K oi t a t es t i fi ed thathe l earned fr om l ett er s thatfi ve A E E M m ember s w er e arr es t ed3

dur i ng the s tr i ke. Si nce the s tr i ke, pol i ce ha ve cont i nued t o s ear ch forhi m . H e has m onthl ycont actw i th hi s m other , w ho r emai ns i n M al i , and s he has t ol d hi m that , as r ece nt l yas 2007, the pol i ce c ame t o herhom e l ooki ng forhi m . A s a r es ul tof the governm ent ’ s cont i nued pur s ui tof hi m forhi s i nvol vementi n A E E M , an or gani zat i on t he g o v e rn m e n t b e liev e s is try in g to d e stro yth e c o u n try , h e f e a rs th a t h e w ill b e p u t in jail and ki l l ed i f he r eturns t o M al i . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, K oi t a admi t t ed thathe w as never in ju re d o r a rre ste d b e f

o re o r d u rin g th e 2 0 0 0 strik e . H e to ld th e IJ th a t h e d id n o t ti m e ly fi l e foras y l um w hen he f i r s tcame t o the U ni t ed St at es beca us e he hope d thatcondi t i ons i n M al i w oul d i m pr ove. K oi t a pr es ent ed numer ous exhi bi t s i n s uppor tof hi s cas e, i ncl udi ng, i n pert i nent part , the 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 U . S. St at e D epart m entC ountryR eport s on H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces i n M al i ; the 1995 St at e D epart m ent ’ s Pr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s and C o u n tryC o n d iti o n s in M a li; a n item e n tit led “ V E R B A L L A W S U IT ,” w h ich a p p e a rs to be comm i t t ee mi nut es fr om a meet i ng of the s tudentas s oci at i on fr om M ar ch 2, 2000, A . R . 283- 84; a l ett erfr om M odi bo K ane Fofa na, G ener al Secr et aryof A E E M , dat ed M ar ch 10, 2004, A . R . 275- 76; a l ett erfr om the G ener al Secr et aryof A E E M , dat ed February7, 2005 and addr es s ed t o K oi t a, A . R . 279- 80; a ce r t i fi cat e of K oi t a’ s att endanc e a t th e U n iv e rsity , A .R . 2 8 7 -8 8 ; th e 2 0 0 3 S tate D e p a rtm e n t’s B a c k g ro u n d N o te o n M a li, A . R . 344- 53; and a l ett eraddr es s ed t o K oi t a fr om the Secr et aryG ener al of the C oor di nat i on C om m i t t ee of A E E M , C hei ck M ohamed B ady , dat ed J ul y20, 2007,T he I J s peci fi cal l ydi s cus s ed the 2006 C ountryR eport , w hi ch s t at es , underthe 1 “Fr eedom of A s s embl y ” s ect i on, that , on N ovember13, 2006, pol i ce f i r ed t eargas i nt o a demonstr at i on of m edi cal s tudent s w ho w er e s eeki ng hi ghers t i pends fr om the governm ent . Fi ve s tudent s , i ncl udi ng a w om an, w er e arr es t ed, char ged w i th damagi ng pr operty , and hel d fors i x day s befor e bei ng r el eas ed. T he s tudent s ’ uni on cl ai m ed that the fi ve w er e phy s i cal l yand s exual l yabus ed w hi l e i n pol i ce c us t ody . A . R . 227. 4 in d ica tin g th a t th e re w a s s til l a s e a rc h f o r c e rta in u n id e n tifie d stu d e n ts g o in g o n in M a li and advi s i ng K oi t a t o s t ayi n exi l e, A . R . 269- 70. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed al l r el i ef, concl udi ng thatK oi t a had nott es t i fi ed cr edi bl y , and, i n t he al t ernat i ve, thathe fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof forent i t l ement t o w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe s t atut e orthe C A T . Speci fi cal l y , the I J found that K oi t a di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on; ther efor e, he w as notent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on of futur e per s ecut i on. I n addi t i on, he fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof t o es t abl i s h thathe fac ed a “ cl earpr obabi l i ty ” of f utur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on. T he IJ fou nd that there w as no ev i den ce t hat w ou l d est abli sh obj ect i velythat there w as a r i sk to an yex il ed stud en ts w h o h ad p rev iou slyp arti cipa ted in the 2 0 0 0 str ike. K o it a’s exhi bi t s , i ncl udi ng the 2006 C ountryR eport , w hi l e r efe r enci ng di ffi cul t i es betw een s tudent s and the governm ent , di d nots uppor thi s cont ent i on conce rni ng the pl i ghtof s tudent s w ho had bee n i n exi l e s i nce 2000. 1 Fur therm or e, the I J concl uded thatK oi t a fa i l ed t o pr ove thathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on upon hi s r eturn t o M al i . N ot i ng thata gr eatdeal of t i m e had pa s s ed s i nce the 2000 demonstr at i on/ s tr i ke, the I J faul t ed K oi t a forfai l i ng t o pr es enti ndepende nt5

evi dence fr om hi s m other , forexampl e, thatw oul d s uppor thi s as s ert i on thathe sp e c if ica llyw a s th e tar g e t o f

a c o n tin u in g in v e stig a tio n , es p e c iallysin c e h e talk e d to h is m otheron a mont hl ybas i s . T he I J al s o concl uded thatK oi t a had nots how n thati tw as m o re lik e ly th a n n o t h e w o u ld b e to rt u re d in M a li. T h e IJ o rd e re d K o ita re m o v e d to M a li. K oit a app eal ed to the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s. In a d e c isio n d a ted Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , the B o a rd a ss u m e d w ith o u t d e c id in g th a t K o ita h a d tes tifie d c re d ib ly , b u t th e B o a rd a g re e d w ith th e IJ th a t K o ita s im p lyh a d n o t m e t h is bu rden of

proof even assum i ng that he t est i fi ed credibl y . T he B oard ag reed w i th the I J, forthe r eas ons gi ven bythe I J , thatK oi t a had notes t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on ora cl ear p rob ab il ityo f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n . A s to the p rob ab il ityo f f u ture p erse cu ti o n in p arti cu lar, the B oar d s peci fi cal l yhel d t hat , beca us e K oi t a cl ai m ed thathi s m othert ol d hi m that author i t i es cont i nued t o l ook forhi m i n M al i , i tw as r eas onabl e t o expec thi m t o pr ovi de a n a f f id a v it o r le tter f

ro m h e r, o r o th e r p e rsu a siv e , firs t-h a n d e v id e n c e , to s u b sta n tiate th is c laim . W ith o u t th e lette r f ro m h is m o th e r, h is c laim th a t M a li au th o rities c o n tin u e d to l ook s peci fi cal l yforhi m overni ne y ear s aft erhi s departur e w as otherw i s e bas ed onl yon

“ o ra l h e a rsa y .” A .R . 3 -4 . T h e B o a rd a g re e d w ith th e IJ’ s C A T c o n c lu sio n a s w e ll. K o ita t i m el ypet i t i oned forr evi ew of the B oar d’ s deci s i on. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the fi nal or derof r emoval under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) . W her e the B oar d adopt s and aff i r m s the opi ni on of the I J , w e r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on t o the ext entof the adopt i on and6

af firm an ce . S ee A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e a g en cy ’s fac tual det erm i nat i ons ar e uphel d i f theyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . U nderthi s defe r ent i al s t andar d, the pet i t i onerm us tes t abl i s h t hatthe evi dence does notj us ts uppor ta contr aryconcl us i on but compel s i t . See i d. at481 n. 1; G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he al i en bea r s the bur den of pr oof of e s t abl i s hi ng thathe i s a r efuge e and thathe has s uffe r ed p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r h a s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n . S e e id .; 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 (a). U n d e r IN A § 2 4 1 (b )(3 )(A ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ), w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l is notdi s cr et i onary : “The A t t orneyG ener al m aynotr emove an al i en t o a countryi f the A t t orneyG ener al deci des thatthe al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n that countrybeca us e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” The t es tforr el i ef i s , how ever , m or e exa ct i ng than the as y l um t es tbeca us e i tr equi r es the al i en t o s how bya “c l earpr obabi l i ty ” thathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound i n the pr opos ed countryof rem ov al . Im m i grat i on & N atural i zat i on S erv. v. S t evic, 46 7 U . S . 40 7 (198 4). S ee al so I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 430 ( 1987) ( “w oul d be thr eat ened” s t andar d has no s ubj ect i ve component ) . Per s ecut i on i s defi ned as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheyK o ita a lso w a iv e d re v iew o f h is C A T c laim . S e e id . In v iew o f th a t w a iv e r, w e w ill 2 notaddr es s the C A T i s s ue. 7 cons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” K i bi nda v. A t t ’ yG en. of U . S. , 477 F. 3d 113, 119 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng Fat i n v. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ) . I tr efe r s onl yt o “s ever e” c onductand “doe s notencompas s al l tr eatm ent o u r s o c ie ty re g a rd s a s u n f a ir , u n ju s t o r e v e n u n la w f

u l o r u n c o n s titu tio n a l.” Id . K oi t a has w ai ved the i s s ue of w hetherhe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. See P et i t i on er’ s B ri ef, at15 n. 4. T he record i n an yeven tdo es not com pel a fi nd i ng of p ast 2 p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se K o ita w a s n e v e r a rre ste d o r h a rm e d o n a c c o u n t o f h is a f f ili a tio n w ith th e stu d e n t o rg a n iza tio n , A E E M . H e h a s n o t id e n tifie d a sin g le e v e n t th a t ca u se d h im extr eme har m ors uffe r i ng s uffi ci entt o m eetthe s t andar d of per s ecut i on. See K i bi nda, 477 F. 3d at119; Fat i n, 12 F. 3d at1240. B eca us e he f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on, h e w a s n o t e n title d to th e f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n p re s u m p tio n . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(1 )(i ). W ith resp ec t t o the f u ture p erse cu ti o n issue , the B o ard ’s an d IJ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t K o ita d id n o t sh o w a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e g o v e rn m e n t o f M a li w oul d arr es torharm hi m now on the bas i s of hi s pol i t i cal act i vi t i es i n 2000 w as s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w h o le . E lia s -Z a c a ri a s , 5 0 2 U .S . a t 4 8 1 . K o ita f a iled to p re se n t an yp e rsu a siv e e v id e n c e th a t th e M a li g o v e rn m e n t cu rre n tly s eeks outm ember s of the s tudentgr oup A E E M w ho pl ay ed s om e r ol e i n the 20008

s tr i ke/ demonstr at i on. B eca us e K oi t a’ s pr obl ems i n M al i ar e s o r emot e i n t i m e, i tw as not s uffi ci entforhi m t o s how m er el ythathe w as i nvol ved w i th A E E M t en y ear s ago. T he r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s th a tKo i t a o f f e r e d Co u n tryRe p o r t s , i n t e rn e ta r t i c l e s , a n d l e t t e r s , s o me o f w h ich w ere ad d resse d to h im o r refe ren ce d h im , in su p p o rto f h is al lega ti o n s. T h e IJ di d noti gnor e K oi t a’ s document aryevi dence . I n hi s br i ef, K oi t a s peci fi cal l ydi s cus s es fouri t ems. See Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef, at11- 12. T he l ett erfr om C hei ck M ohamed B ady des cr i bes tr oubl e atthe Facul t é des Sci ence s J ur i di ques etE conomi ques atthe begi nni ng of 2007 and s t at es thatl eade r s have be en i m pr i s oned. I tw arns exi l ed s tudent s t o s t ay a w a yb u t itd o e s n o t p e rsu a siv e lysta te th a t g o v e rn m e n t au th o rities h a v e a n yin ter e st in a rr e s tin g s tu d e n ts w h o p a rt ic ip a te d in th e 2 0 0 0 s tr ik e /d e m o n s tr a tio n . A .R . 2 6 9 . T he M ar ch 10, 2004 l ett erfr om Secr et aryG ener al M odi bo K ane Fofa na s t at es t hat d e m o n stra to rs h a d b e e n g a ss e d a n d 4 0 stu d e n ts h a d b e e n a rre ste d . A .R . 2 7 5 . T h is r ecount i ng of eve nt s appea r s , how ever , t o r efe rt o r ece ntdi ffi cul t i es and notthe 2000 strik e /d e m o n stra tio n . F u rth e rm o re , the lette r m a k e s n o p e rsu a siv e re f e re n c e to governm entauthor i t i es havi ng anycurr enti nt er es ti n s tudent s w ho part i ci pat ed i n the 2 0 0 0 s tr i k e / d e mon s tr a t i o n . Th e Fe b ru a ry7 , 2 0 0 5 l e t t e rf r o m a n u n i d e n t i f

i e d AEEM G e n e ra l S e c re tar ysta tes th a t th e c risis s tar ted u p a g a in in 2 0 0 4 -2 0 0 5 . T h e a u th o r “ lo st” thr ee of hi s fr i ends and eve n “ac tual l eade r s ” w er e on a “ bl ack l i s t . ” A . R . 279. T he authorw arns exi l ed s tudent s t o s t ayaw ay , but , agai n, the l ett erm akes no per s uas i ve r efe r ence t o governm entauthor i t i es havi ng anycurr enti nt er es ti n s tudent s w hoO n e o th e r in ter n e t ar ticle sp e c if ica llyin c lu d e d in K o ita’s a p p e n d ix , en tit led “ M a li: 3 I ns t i tut i onal Si tuat i on, ” w hi ch appe ar s t o have be en author ed bya per s on orper s ons con nected w i th M on t esquieu U niver i ty -B ordeau x, F rance, st at es that A E E M i s “the m ost ant i es t abl i s hm entof the M al i an uni on m ovement s . I t s act i ons l ai d dow n the founda t i ons o f th e ‘r e v o lu tio n ’ t h a t o v e rt h re w th e d ic ta to rs h ip [ o f G e n e ra l M o u s s a T ra o ré in 1 9 9 1 ]. R ece ntact i on compri s ed the ac ademi c y ear1998- 99. ” A . R . 297. T hi s art i cl e does not even r efe r ence the 2000 s tr i ke/ demonstr at i on. 9 part i ci pat ed i n the 2000 s tr i ke/ demonstr at i on. L as t , the M ar ch 2, 2000 m i nut es ( “V erbal L aw sui t ”) fr om a stud ent m eet i ng held atthe U niver si tyst at es that the si tuati on i s t ense a n d c e r t a i n “ c o mr a d e s ” we r e i n p r i s o n , b u tth e l e t t e rs t a t e s th a tKo i t a h i ms e l f wa s k n o wn to h a v e g o tten o u t o f

M a li. A .R . 2 8 3 . T h e se m in u tes d o n o t ad d re ss c u rre n t co n d iti o n s in M a li. 3 T h e IJ p ro p e rlyg a v e little w e ig h t to K o ita’s d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e a n d p ro p e rly c o n c lu d e d th a t itw a s in a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a n a ss e rtio n th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t o f M a li i s curr ent l yi nt er es t ed i n det ai ni ng and harm i ng A E E M m ember s w ho part i ci pat ed i n the 2 0 0 0 str ike/d em o n str ati o n . In li g h t of the in su ff

ici en t evid en ce , the IJ a n d the B o ard pr oper l yfocus ed on the onl ythi ng thats peci fi cal l ys uppor t ed K oi t a’ s purpor t ed fe arof harm : thathi s m otherhas t ol d hi m thatauthor i t i es cont i nued t o l ook forhi m i n M al i . B ut K oi t a di d notpr ovi de an a ffi davi torl ett erfr om hi s m other , orotherper s uas i ve evi dence to su b sta n tiate th is a ss e rtio n , an d h is f a ilu re to p re se n t an yd o c u m e n tatio n f ro m h is m o th e r w a s n o t r e a s o n a b le b e c a u s e h e te s tif ie d th a t h e ta lk s to h e r o n a m o n th ly b a s is . K oi t a cont ends i n hi s br i ef thatthe B oar d err ed i n deny i ng hi s cl ai m bas ed on the a b s e n c e o f

c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e f r o m h i s m o th e r . S e e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s B r i e f , a t9 - 1 0 . We10

h a v e h e ld th a t co rro b o ra tio n m a yb e re q u ire d , ev e n f ro m c re d ib le a p p lica n ts, se e A b d u lai, 239 F. 3d at554, w her e i ti s ( 1) r eas onabl e t o expec tthe appl i cantt o pr oduce c o rro b o ra tio n , (2 ) th e a p p lica n t f a ils to c o rro b o ra te, a n d (3 ) th e a p p lica n t f a ils to adequa t el yexpl ai n t hatfai l ur e. C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. of U . S. , 484 F. 3d 185, 191- 92 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ing T o u re v . A tt ’yG en . o f U . S . , 4 3 F . 3 d 3 1 0 , 3 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e IJ and the B oar d i n K oi t a’ s cas e ful l ycompl i ed w i th thi s t es t . T he B oar d, forexampl e, concl uded thati tw as r eas onabl e t o expec tcorr obor at i on beca us e K oi t a’ s as s ert i ons otherw i s e w er e bas ed on hea r s ayand w er e notper s uas i ve. M or eover , K oi t a cl ai m ed that hi s m otherhad per s onal know l edge of the M al i author i t i es ’ cont i nued i nt er es ti n hi m ni ne y ear s aft erthe 2000 s tr i ke, and he t es t i fi ed thathe t al ked t o hi s m otheras r ece nt l yas Ja n u a ry , 2 0 0 8 . W h e n q u e stio n e d , h e h a d n o re a so n a b le e x p lan a tio n f o r h is f a ilu re to r eques ta l ett erfr om hi s m othercorr obor at i ng hi s cl ai m s . A . R . 190- 193. L as t , K oi t a cont ends thatthe B oar d act ed i m pr oper l yi n notr eac hi ng the i s s ue of h i s c r e d i b i l i ty. T h i s a r g u m e n tl a c k s m e r i tb e c a u s e th e B o a r d , i n d e e d a n y c o u r to ra g e n c y, i s notr equi r ed t o deci de an i s s ue thati s notnece s s aryt o the r es ul ti tr eac hes . See I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. B agamas bad, 429 U . S. 24, 25 ( 1976) . I n l i ghtof the s ubs t ant i al evi dence thats uppor t ed the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on thatK oi t a’ s fea rof f u tu re p e rse c u tio n w a s n o t cle a rlyp ro b a b le, th e B o a rd w a s n o t re q u ire d to a d d re ss h is c r e d i b i l i ty. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew