NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORF ULL -TEXT PUB LIC ATION Fi le Name: 09a 0504n.0 6 No. 08- 3394 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
AM AD OU AL AS SA NE LY, Pet itione r,
v. ER IC H . H OLD ER , J R. , Uni ted S tates Att or ney

Gene ra l Res pondent

. / O n a p p e a l fro m t h e B o a rd of Im migration Ap pea ls

BEF OR E: MA RTIN , RYAN , and SU TTON, C ircui t J udg es. RY AN , Ci rc uit Judg e. The peti ti oner , Amadou Al ass ane Ly , appeal s an order of the Bo ard of

Imm igration App eals (BIA) ad opt ing and af f irming an Im migration Ju dge’s (I J) deni al of Ly ’s appl ic ati on for asy lum, w it hhol din g of remov al, and protec ti on unde r the Convention A ga inst T orture (CAT ). Because substa ntial evidence supp orts the IJ’s deci si on, w e deny

Ly ’s peti ti on for re v iew

. I. Ly , a Ma ur it ani an belong ing to the Ful ani ethnicg ro up, a rr iv ed i n the U nit ed St ates
arou nd March 24 , 200 4, as a n on-im migrant vi sitor wit h a uth oriz ation to rema in for six months

. On J anuar

y 17, 2005, Ly

appl ied for a sy lum w it h th e D epar tment of Homel and Secu ri ty ( DH S) , bas ing hi s a ppl ic ati on o n race, nati onal ity , pol it ic al opi nio n, an d members hip i n the D emocrati c U nio n F orces ( UF D) /U nio n of Prog re ss F orces ( UF P)

.(N o.08- 3394) -2
-

DH S deni ed Ly ’s appl ic ati on and lat er i ss ued a noti ce to ap pear , c harg ing Ly w it h bei ng su bje ct to remov al under 8 U .S.C . § 1227( a) (1 )( B) , for re maini ng i n the U nit ed St ates bey ond t he per mitt ed ti me per iod

. On Aug ust24, 2006, Ly appeared for his heari ng before the I J a nd te sti fied th at he beg an w or ki ng for

the Ma ur it ani an gov er nment in 1984 as a super v is or for q ual ity

co ntrol of food atthe Nat io n a l Ce nter of Hy g ien e. As a benefitof his j ob, h e l iv ed i n federa l housi ng . L y t e s t if ie d t h a th is m e m b e rs h ip in UF D , a n d i t s su c c e s s o r U F P , re s u lt e d in two ins tanc es of pers ecut ion

. Fi rs t, Ly cl aimed, he a nd fiv e oth ers w ere ar re ste d on June 20, 2003, becau se the g ov er nment thoug ht he par ti ci pated in a coup d’e tat. The g ov er nment hel d hi m in j ail , t ortur ing hi m at l eastthree ti mes a day in an effort t o obt ain a c onfessi on. Una ble to extracta c onfessi on from L y , t he g ov er nment rele ased him on J uly 6, 2003, but onl y after forc ing hi m to s ig n a s tatementag re ein g to ceas e and desi st from al l pol it ic al act iv it ies

. The sec ond ins tanc e of al leg ed persec uti on occ ur re d in Ma rc h 2004, w hen Ly and si x othe rs w ere ar re ste d at Ly ’s home for hol din g a cl andes ti ne meeti ng and detai ned for ten days. Accordin g to Ly , the police beat him regularly in an attem pt to g et him to adm it that he w as plo tti ng ag ain st the g ov er nment. Ly cl aimed that he w as re lea sed under the cond ition th at he pay a f ine and si gn an agreem ent tha t if he w ere arreste d again, he w ould be ex ecut ed. After the s econd i nci dent, Ly dec ide d to f le e t he c ountr y . He trav ele d to Seneg al and rema ined there f rom March 15 , 200 4 un til March 23, 200 4. Ly of fered into evidence
an ar re st w ar ra nt i ss ued byMaur it ani an poli ce, dated March 20, 2004, w hic h s tated that(N o.08- 3394) -3
-

Ly w as w ant ed a s a n active m em ber of “Act ion for Ch ange” and t hathe cou ld be foun d in the U nit ed St ates

. Att he c on c l us i on o f t he h ea r i ng , th e IJ d enie d Ly ’ s a pp l i c at i on s for a s y l um , w it hhol din g of re mov al, and CAT pro tec ti on. The IJ based his deci si on on the fact th at he fou nd Ly ’ s te s ti mo ny no t c red i bl e. The IJ di d no t be l i ev e th at th e g ov er nm ent w ould cont inu e to employ

Ly after al leg edl y

i mpri soni ng and to rt u rin g him for o pposi ng the g ov er nment. The IJ note d tha t, despi te t he fact that Ly pos ses sed a v ali d v is a to come to the U nit ed St ates dur ing the ti me of his al leg ed tort ure in June or Jul y 2003, he remaine d in Ma ur it ani a for a n o th e r ei g ht mont hs. Ad dit ion all y , t he IJ found i t s uspi ci ous that the Mauritan ian gov ernm entissued a warrantfor L y ’s a rrest ju st days af ter it had released him in 200 4 rathe r tha n just keep ing him in jail. T he IJ also discussed inconsiste ncies in Ly’s tes ti mony

reg ardin g the date he j oin ed th e UFD/ UFP

. He noted that the a rrestw ar ra nt is sued in 2004 na med the pol it ic al par ty Ac ti on for Cha ng e and not the UF D/ UF P, and t he
w arrant sta ted thatLycould be foun d in the United St ate s, w hen in fact he w as in Sen egal. The IJ found that le tters to Lyf ro m his w ife and a f ri end w ere “ v er y sk impy w it h respect t o any deta il s o r facts on th e al leg ed past pers ecut ion .” Fi nal ly , the IJ concl uded “th at al l of the se po ints in the agg regate . . . lead me to make an ad v e rs e c re dibility f inding against [Ly].” On M ar ch 27, 2 008, the B IA a ff ir med the IJ’ s d eci si on, a nd de n ied reli ef. Ly now peti ti ons thi s c our

t for re v iew

. II.(N o.08- 3394) -4
-

Ly a rg ue s t ha t he s at i s fi ed h is b urde n of e s ta bl i s hi ng e l i g i bi l i ty for a s y l um , w it hhol din g of re mov al, and protec ti on u n d e r CA T , and thatthe IJ er re d i n c oncl udi ng other w is e. W e rev iew

the BIA’ s l eg al deter minat ion s d e n o v o and it s fact ual findi ng s for substan ti al ev i de nc e. M os ta fa v . As hc roft , 39 5 F .3 d 62 2, 62 4 ( 6t h C i r . 20 05 )

. W e w ill uphol d the findi ng s “ as lon g as they are suppo rt ed by reason abl e, s ubst anti al, and probati v e ev ide nce on th e record cons ide re d as a w hol e.” I d. ( int er nal q uotat ion mar ks and ci tati ons omitted)

. W here, as here, t he BI A affirms the IJ’s d e ci si on butw it h addi ti onal
com me nta ry , w e revi ew the IJ ’s d e c isio n directly w hile also con sidering the BIA ’s comments

. Gi laj v . G onz ale s, 408 F .3d 2 75, 2 83 (6th Ci r. 2005)

. Impor tantl y , w e may

not
re v erse “u nle ss any

reason abl e adj udi cat or w oul d b e compell ed to co ncl ude t o the cont ra ry .” 8 U. S.C . § 1252( b) (4 )( B)

. In order to q ual ify

for a sy lum, an ap p lic a n t m ustes tabl is h “ a w ell -founded fear of persec uti on o n a ccount of rac e, reli g ion , nat ion ali ty , membershi p i n a p arti cul ar so ci al g ro up, o r pol it ic al opi nio n” i f h e we re to re tur n to his co untr y of or ig in. 8 U. S.C . § 1101( a) (4 2) (A ). I n order to est abl is h enti tl ement to w it hhol din g of re mov al, the appl ic ant must demonst ra te t he hi g her burden of

a “c lea r probabi li ty

of persec uti on.” G umbol v . I NS , 815 F.2d 40 6, 41 1 (6th C ir

. 1 987 ) ( intern al quotat ion m arks om itted ). To est ablish enti tl ement to re li ef un der C AT, the appl ic ant mus t prov e “ that iti s more l ik ely than not that he or sh e w oul d be tor

tured i f remov ed to the propo se d c o u n tr y of re mov al. ” 8 C .F .R . § 208.16( c) (2 ). An app li cant ’s credi ble tes ti mony “may be s uff ic ien t t o s ust ain the burden of proof
w it hout cor ro borati on.” 8 C. F. R. § 12 08.13( a)

. On t he ot h e r hand, impl ausi bil it ies and(N o.08- 3394) -5
-

inc onsi ste nci es mayform a basi s for an a dv erse credi bil ity

findi ng . See Y u v . As hcroft, 364 F. 3d 700, 703 (6 th C ir . 200 4)

. W e thi nk subs tanti al ev ide n ce suppor ts the I J’ s d eter minat ion thatLy ’s tes ti mony
w as not c re dib le, w hic h w as the reason for d eny ing Ly ’s appl ic ati on. The remov al hear ing transc ri pt an d the IJ ’s oral deci si on prov ide adeq uate suppo rtfor t he BI A’ s d eter minat ion

. The I J carefull y

anal yz ed Ly ’s tes ti mony and suppo rt ing doc uments and made det ail ed f indings as to w hy he m ade the ad v erse credib ility f inding. Ly claims tha t the I J base d his deci si on on the I J’ s o w n bel iefs, but the record s ug g est s o ther w is e. Ly fail ed to meet his burden of es tabl is hin g eli g ibi li ty for asy lum. It follo w s t hat h e canno t meetthe hig her burden of sh ow ing enti tl ement t o w it hhol din g of re mov al and protec ti on unde r CAT. C eraj v . M ukas ey , 511 F .3d 5 83, 5 94 ( 6th C ir . 200 7)

. W e c oncl ude that subs tanti al ev ide nce suppo rt s the I J’ s d eni al of Ly ’s appl ic ati on. III . T he p etition for rev iew

is D EN IED

.