NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0804n.06 No. 08-4077 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I B RA H I M A T H I A W, Petitioner,
v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETI TI ON FORRE VI E W OF A FI NAL ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : SU HRHE I

NR I CH , M CK EA GU E a

nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. KETHL EDGE, Circuit Judge. I brahim a T h i aw petitions for r eview of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ de cision aff irming the denial of his a

pplication for a sy lum and withholding of re mov a l. We dis mis s h is p e tit ion in p art and de ny it i n p art
. I. Thiaw i s a n at i v e and citiz en of Ma uritania, a

nd a member

of its Fulani ethnic g roup. Acc ording to Thiaw, ethnic Moor soldiers attac ked h i s v i l lag e in 1989, ca pturing and beating the men. Among ot her things, t he sol diers burned Thiaw’s le g in hot ashes and killed his fathe r. Thiaw there afte r esc aped to Sene g al, wher e his mother and other re latives had be en depor ted. He r emained the re fo r 1 1 o r 1 2 y e ars .No. 08-4077

Thiaw v. Holder

-2- Thiaw c laim s t o h av e fi rst arr ived in the United States in J une or July 2001. He f

iled an application for asylum and withhol ding of remova l on Dece mber 28, 2001. He voluntarily left the United States in November 2003 to visit his sick mother in Seneg al. He r eturne d from that trip on Dec ember

28, 2003, using a

passport and visa that belong ed to his cousin but that had bee n altere d to bear Thiaw’s photog raph. An asy l u m o ff

i cer interviewe d Thiaw in May 2005. During the interview , Thiaw said he
arr ive d in the Un ite d Stat e s b y

bo a t, at B a lti mor e , M ary land in Jun e 20 01 . H e did

no t di sc los e his 2003 depar

ture. The officer ref

err ed Thiaw’s application to the imm igr ation court. The Depa rtment of Ho me land Se c ur ity the n issu e d a Not ic e to Ap pe ar c ha rg inghim wi th b e ingsu

bje c t to re mov a l. Thiaw a ppear ed before an i mmigration judge (I J ) and conce ded removability , but reque sted asylum
and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. At his hearing , Thiaw testified f or the fir st tim e that he had f irst entere d the United States at J FK A irport in N e w Y o r k Ci ty o n Ju ly 4 , 2 0 0 1 , u s in g h is c o u s in ’ s a lt e r e d p a s s p o rt an d v is a . He disclaimed his prior asse rtion of ar riving at B altimore as a

n err or made by

an Eng lish-speaking friend who had assisted him with his a sy lum a pplication. He attributed his f ailure to c orrect t h e e rror
ear lier to his fea

r of a ppear ing inc onsistent to the asy lum officer
. The I J did not cre dit Thia

w’s testimony

reg ardinghis arriva l, and noted that Thiaw produce d
no other evidenc e—beside s the admittedly false pa ssport itself—of wher e and w hen he f irst entere d the United States. Consequently , the I J conclude d that Thiaw could not e stablish that he had filed his asy lum application within one y ear of hi s en t ry . The I J there fore denied Thia w’s asy lumNo. 08-4077

Thiaw v. Holder

-3- application as untimely . The I J also found that Thiawhad aba ndoned his asylum application by le a vin g the Un ite d St a te s in 20 03 and that a sylum

wa s n ot j us tif

ie d o n th e me ri ts. The I J likewise denie d Thiaw’s a pplication for withhol d i n g o f removal, which Thiaw
su pp or te d b y te sti fy inga bo ut e ve nts that occ ur

re d in 1989
. De sp ite Th iaw’ s fa ilure to r e po rt tho se events previously

—which he also blamed on his f riend’s defic ient assistance —the I J d ee med Thiaw’s a ccount “ g ener ally cre dible” and f

ound that he had “just bar ely ” prove n that he had suf fer ed past perse cution in Ma

uritania. But the I J found, base d primarily on State Depa

rtment repor

ts, that
c on dit ion s in

Ma ur ita nia ha d c ha ng e d to the e xten t that Th iaw was no t li ke ly to b e su bje c te d to future pe rsec ution there. (O rder at 14-15, Apr . 18, 2007.) Thiaw a ppeale d to the Boa

rd of Immigration Appea ls, which affirmed and supplemented the I J ’s dec ision. This petit ion for re view followe d. II. Be cause the B oard a dopted t he I J ’s reasoning and adde d comments of its own, we r eview the I J ’s decision direc tly while consider ing the Boa rd’s c omments. Ceraj v. Muk asey , 511 F.3d 583, 588 (6th Cir. 2007). We revie w leg al questions de novo and f actua l findings for substantial evidence
. S ee id. Under

the substantial-evide nce sta ndard, “ finding s of fa ct ar e conc lusive ‘unless any
rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .’” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B) ). A.No. 08-4077

Thiaw v. Holder

-4- Thiaw c halleng es the I J ’s finding that he aba ndoned his asylum application by leavingthe United States in 2003. He also challeng es one of the I J ’s alter native mer its findings, name ly , that
a sylum wa s unn e c e ssa

ry be c a us e Th iaw h a d a

sa fe ha rb or in S e ne g a l. Those cha lleng es are moot , howeve r, because they acc ompanied the I J ’s deter mination that Thiaw’s asy lum a

p p li c a ti o nw a s u n ti me ly
. T h ia w h a s n o t c o n te s te d

th a t d e te r

mi n a ti o n , an d

we would not have jurisdiction over such a cha lleng e in any event. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (stripping
c ourt s o f j ur isd ic tio n to re vie w t ime lin e ss d e te rm inatio ns ); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 74 8 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t e xc e p t i o n s t o j u r i s d i c t i o n - s t r i p p i n g p r o v i s i o n a p p l y on ly to “constitutional claim s or matters of statutory construction”) . That dete rmination is disposi tive of Thiaw’s a sy lum application, so we dism iss his petition to the ex tent that it seeks review of the I J ’s de nia l of a sylum
. B. Th iaw a lso seeks revie w o f t he I J’s d e nia l of

his a pp lic a tio n f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. Eligibility

for withholding of re moval is subject to a b u rd en -s hifting a naly sis. First, an applica

nt
mus t sh owthat his lif

e or fr e e do m w ou ld b e thr e a te ne d in the c ountr

y of re mov a l ba se d o n c e rt a in g rounds, including rac e or nationality
. I f the a pplicant prove s past perse cution on such a g round, the I J must presume a thre at of futur e per secution. The g overnme nt may rebut the pr esumption by sh ow inga fu nd a me nta l c ha

ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s that e lim inate s the thr e a t. Al te rn a tiv e ly , r e g a rd le ss of pa st p e rs e c uti on , a

n ap pli c ant may sim

ply a tte mpt to s ho w that he “ mor e lik e ly tha n n ot” wo uld suffe r future perse cution. 8 C.F.R § 1208.16(b).No. 08-4077

Thiaw v. Holder

-5- Her e, the I J found that Thiaw had proven past perse cution, but a lso f ound—primarily

relying
o nS t at e D ep ar t m en tre p o rt s
—t h at ci rc u m s t an ce s i nM au ri t an i a h ad ch an ged
. S p ec i fi ca l l y , al t h o u gh the I J rec og nized that “some ethnic and rac ial discrimination” continues in Mauritania , the I J found, based on the repor

ts, that “cur

rent country conditions do not include widespread pe rsec ution[ ,]” that “ther e ar e now f

ree and gene rally democr atic elections underw ay in that country [,] ” and that many other late -1980s re fug ees ha d returne d to Mauritania. Conseque ntly , the I J found that Thiaw, mor e likely than not, would not suffer future pe rsec ution in Mauritania. Th iaw a rgue s th e re po rt s d o n ot r e bu t the pr e su mpt ion of pe rs e c uti on he re , c iti ngthe Ni nth Circuit’s statement that “a S t at e De p artment report on country conditions, standing a lone, is not
su ff ic ie nt to r e bu t th e pr e su mpt ion of futur e pe rs e c uti on

wh e n a pe tit ion e r h a s e sta

bli sh e d p a st perse cution.” Mo lin a-Es tra da v . I NS , 293 F. 3 d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002). That stateme nt was dicta, howe ver, be cause the petitioner ther e h ad n o t established past per secution. More over,
a lth ou g h s uc h r e po rt s are no t pe rf e c t so ur c e s o f inf

or ma tio n, our c ourt ha s sa id the y “ are g e ne ra lly the best source of information on conditions in foreig n nations.” Mu lla i v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F.3d 635, 639 (6th Cir. 2004). Whether a pa

rticular r eport is sufficie nt to rebut a presumption of perse cution depends on the
re po rt and the fa c ts o f t

he c a se . O ur

c ourt ha s r e pe a te dly

up he ld I J det e rm inatio ns ba se d u po n St a te Depa rtment repor

ts conce rning Mauritania. See , e.g. , Koita v. M ukasey , 314 F. App’ x 839, 844-45 (6 th Cir . 2 00 9) ; Sall v. Gonzales , 239 F. App’x 975, 980-81 (6th Cir. 2007). The que stion, therefor e, i s wh et h er

T h i aw h as s h o wn t h att h e r ep o rt h er e w as n o ts u p p o rt i v e o f t h e IJ ’s fi n d i n g.No. 08-4077

Thiaw v. Holder

-6- Thiaw ha s not made that showing . I nstead, he offe rs only the conc l u s ory

asser tion that “conditions in Mauritania ha ve not sig nificantly

improved[.] ” Pet. B r. at 14. Tha t assertion af

fords us no basis to set aside the I J ’s finding as to the unlikelihood of future perse cution. Nor did the I J err , as Thiaw contends, by apply ing the more-likely -than-not standa rd instead of the more lenie nt well-founde d-fe ar standa rd. Thiaw’ s relianc e on INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421 (1987), an asylum case , is misplaced. Cardoza-Fonseca itself expressly rec og nized that the well-founded-f

ear standard does not apply in the wit hholding- of-r emoval conte x t. See id. at 423 (c i t i n g I N S v . S t e v ic , 4 67 U. S. 4 07 , 4 28 (1 98 4) ); se e als o 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(iii) (f uture perse cution must be “more likely than not”). Sub sta nti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the I J’s fi nd ing s. We the re fo re de ny Th iaw’ s p e tit ion

a s to his
c la im f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. C. Finally , Thiaw urg es us to rema nd this case f

or fur ther proc eedin gs i n light of ne w information, not part of the administrative re cord, r eg arding a coup in Ma uritania. Thiaw

contends that this information undermines th e I J’ s w it hh o ld in g - o f

- r e mo v al finding s. We are limited, howeve r, t o the re cord be fore us. See 8 U
. S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ) ( “ [T ]h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls s h all decide the petition only

on the administrative re cord” ). Thiaw’ s proper rec ourse is to file a motion to reopen his removal proc eeding s in light of this information. We theref ore de ny his request for

rema nd. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e dis mis s T hia w’ s p e tit ion

in p art and de ny it i n p art
.