Pursuant to Fede ral Rul e of Appellate Proce dure 43( c)( 2), Attorney Gene ral Micha el B . Mukasey * is automatically

substitut ed for

former Attorney Gene ral J ohn Ashcrof t as R espondent in this case

. J udg e John R . Gibson, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by ** desig nation.

- 1 - 05

- 01 36

- ag N i ang v. M uk as ey UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T

____________________________________

Aug ust Term, 2006 (Submitt ed: J une 15, 2007 De cided: De cembe r 19, 2007) Docke t No. 05-0136-a g

____________________________________ SOUL EYMANE N I ANG , Petitioner , MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, * Respondent

.

____________________________________ Be fore : L EVAL , CAL AB RESI , and GI BSON, Circuit Judges

. **

____________________________________ Petition for revie w of an order of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appe als (“ BI A” ) d enying pe tit ion e r’ s a

pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , w i thh old ingof

re mov a l, a

nd re lie f u nd e r t he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture (“CAT” ). Vac ated in par

t, and re manded. Morry Cheng , New Y ork, N.Y., for Petitioner

. Pravin Rao & Craig Oswald, Assist ant Unit ed States Attor ne y s for Patrick J. Fitz g eral d , United States Attorney for the N orthern D istric t of I llinois , Chicag o, I ll., for Respondent

.- 2 - ____________________________________ 1 CAL AB RESI , Circuit Judge : 2 Souley

mane Nia ng (“N iang ” or “ petitioner”) , asser tedly a native and citizen of

Mauritania, 3 petitions thi s Court for re view of a Dec ember

22, 200 4 o rd er o f t h e B I A. The B I A af firmed the 4 decision of Immigration J udg e (“ I J ”) Wil liam P. Van Wy ke, pre termitting Nia

ng ’s application for 5 asylum, and denying his c laims for withholdi ng of removal and for relief under the United Nations 6 Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, I nhuman or De g radingTreatment or Punishment 7 (“CAT” ), De c. 10, 1984, S. Tre at y Do c. No. 100- 20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. In re Souley mane Niang , 8 No. A 96 169 373 (B .I .A. Dec . 22, 2004), aff’g No. A 96 169 373 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 19, 9 2003). Niangclaimed t h at he a nd his family

wer e violently

expelled from Mauritania on acc ount 10 of their r ace . The I J , relying on his c onclusion t h at Ni an g h ad submitted identity documents that 11 wer e not g enuine, f ound that petitioner’s testimony was not c redible, and decide d that Nianghad not 12 met his burden o f p ro o f. T he B I A upheld the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination, and held, 13 mor e ov e r, tha

t countr y c on dit ion s in Mauri tania ha d ch ang e d suc h tha t Niangno lon g e r f a c e d a ri sk 14 of per secution. 15 We hold that wher e, as here , an applicant’ s testimony is otherwise c redible, c onsistent and 16 compelling , the ag ency cannot ba se an a dverse cre dibilit y d et er m i n ati on solely

on a spec ulative 1 7 fi n d i n g t h at t h e ap p l i ca n t h as s u b m i t t ed i n au t h en t i c do cu m en t s i n s u p p o rt o f hi s ap p l i ca t i o n . In 18 a dd iti on , w e re ite rate that, w he re an a pp lic ant f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l e sta

bli sh e s p a st 19 pe rs e c uti on , b ut t he a g e nc y

fi nd s a fundamen ta l c ha

ng e in c ountr

y c on dit ion s, the a g e nc y

mus t 20 provide a

rea soned basis, tethere d in the rec ord, for its chang ed countr y conditions determination,- 3 - 1 unless undisputed historical fac ts support the conclusion t hat the applica nt will not face pe rsec ution 2 on re mov a l. 3 B ACKG ROUND 4

5 P et i t i o n er

en t er edt h e U n i t edS t at es at J F K A i r p o rt o nAu gu s t1 6 , 2 0 0 1 , af t er p re s en t i n g a 6 Seneg alese passport and student visa belong ing to a man named Ma madou B a. In Fe bruar

y 2003, 7 Niangapplied for asylum, withholding of r emoval, and CAT r elief. O n his I -589 application, Niang 8 claimed that his hom e country was Mauritania, and that he was a member of the F ulani ethnic g roup. 9 Petitioner wrote that he was “very afr aid” to return to Mauritania, or to Seneg al, wher e he ha d been 10 living since 1989, believing that he would ther e be a rre sted or killed. 11 Ni ang wa s the n se rv e d wi th a No tic e to A

pp e ar t o f a c e re mov a l pr oc e e din g s b e fo re an I J in 12 Cincinnati. He conce ded remova bility at a Master

Calendar hear ing in De troit, where the I J acc eded 1 3 t o N i an g ’ s r e qu e s tt o m o v e t h e c a s e t o N e w Y o r k C i t y. 14 I. The He ar ing 15 A. Niang ’s Testimony 16

17 I J Wil liam P. Van Wy ke hea rd the mer its of Niang ’s claim on Nove mber 19, 2003, in t he 18 I mmi g ratio n Co ur t in Ne w Y or k. Ni angwa s th e on ly

wi tne ss. He tol d th e I J tha t he le ft Ma ur ita nia 19 in D ece mber 1989, when he was twelve y ear s old, a nd that he had never been back. I n 19 8 9 and 20 1990, ethnic tensions in southern Mauritania culminated in ma ss expul sions, and petitioner cla imed- 4 - 1 to be a victim of t his purg e. When asked by the j udg e how he lef t Mauritania, pe titioner said that 2 “white milit arie s” came to his family ’s home and told them to le ave. When his fa ther spoke out, the 3 soldiers beat him heavily and tied him up. When Niang ’s brother resisted, he was shot and kill ed. 4 Ni angc la ime d th a t he , h is pa re nts and his sis te r we re ne xt j a ile d fo r te n da y s, and the n take n a c ro ss 5 the river

to Sene g al and or dere d never to return. Ac cordingto Niang , the Mauritania n authorities 6 told his family

that they did not belong in Mauritania, made his pare nts sign pape rs promising ne ver 7 to re-e nter the c ountry , and said that they would be killed or imprisoned if they came back. 8 Once in Seneg al, the Niangfamily went to a r efug ee c amp. Two months later, pe titioner’s 9 fathe r died fr o m t h e beating he had re ceive d. Niangsaid that the dea ths of his father

and brothe r 10 wer e “too much” for his mother, who die d a y ear later. This left Niang and his y oung er sister living 11 in the camp. In 1994, when petitioner was about six teen, he hear d that life in Daka r wa s better than 12 life in the ca

mp, so he set off w ith t h re e fr iends on the “ve ry hot and strenuous” road to the 13 Seneg alese capital; he le ft his sister behind. Niangtestified that he ha s not seen her since. When 14 he g ot to Dakar , he wa s disappointed; l ac k i n g d o cu m entation that would authorize him to work 15 leg ally , he did menial jobs for a wea lthy family who paid him with food. 16 Petitioner stated that, af ter he had been l i v i n g in Dakar for a number of y ear s, he hea

rd a 17 re po rt

that any on e in S e ne g a l w ho wa s f ro m Ma ur ita nia wa s to be se nt b a c k th e re . A c c or ding to 18 Ni ang , he g ot he lp fr om Mama do u Ba , a son of the fa mil y fo r wh ic h he wo rk e d. B a ha d a n F -1 vis a 19 to come to the United States. He g ave his pa ssport and visa to N iang , who prete nded to be Ba when 20 enter ing the country . After arr iving in Amer ica, he mailed the passpor t back to B a in Seneg al. 21I n addition to the two identity documents, the I J admitted to the rec ord the State De partment’s 1 Countr y Re po rt s o n M a

ur ita nia fo r 2 00 0 a

nd 20 02 , a nd oth e r s ourc e s o n c on dit ion s in Mauritania.

- 5 - B . T he I de nti ty

Do c ume nts 1 2 I n a dd iti on to N iang ’s te sti mony , th e I J adm it t e d v a r i o u s pie c e s o f d oc ume nta ry e vid e nc e int o 3 the re cord. Tw o items are pa rticularly signific ant to Niang ’s peti t i o n fo r re v i ew: (1) a copy of a 4 Mauritanian ide ntity document, and ( 2) a Sene g alese ref ug ee identity car d. Both we re pr offe red 1 5 by Niang to show that he was a Mauritanian ref ug ee. The g overnme nt’s cross-e x amin at i o n , an d, 6 ult imate ly , th e I J’s d e c isi on , c e nte re d la rg e ly on the pr ov e na

nc e and ve ra c ity of the se pa pe rs . 7 1. The Mauritanian Identity Docum ent 8 9 Petitioner submitt ed a copy of hi s putative M auritania n identity document. I t list s, among 10 oth e r t

hin g s, pe ti ti on er’s name , h is p la c e of bir th, and his date of

bir th: July 30 , 1 97 7. Pr int e d in 11 F re nc h a

nd Ar a bic , it ind ic a te s th a t N iang ’s nati o n a l i t y i s “ M a u r i t a n i e nn e .” Th e Ma

ur ita nia n id e nti ty 12 d o cu m en t wa s purportedly issued on J anuar

y 25, 1989, and opposite the wor d “prof ession” is the 13 word “ commerç ant.” At the bot tom, there is a photogra ph, appar ently

of Niang , flanke d on one side 14 by

a fing erpr int, and on the other side by a signature, which rea ds “Souley man” or “Souley mane.” 15 Ni angstate d th a t the c ard wa s iss ue d by the g ov e rnme nt of Ma ur ita nia , and ob ta ine d by

his 16 fathe r, be fo re his fa mil y wa s expe lle d: “It’ s my da d tha t had ma de it whe n w e liv e d in Ma ur ita nia 17 and he ma de it throug h the g overnme nt.” Challeng ed to ex p l ain why the holder’ s profe ssion was 18 appar ently

rec orded a s “commer çant,” even thoug h Niang was only eleve n y ear s old at the time of 19 iss ue , N iangre pli e d th a t hi s f a the r w a s a

me rc ha nt. Pe tit ion e r sa id that whe n the y we nt t o Se ne g a l, 20 his mot

he r ha d c us tod

y of the do c ume nt, and that a ft e r sh e die d, he him se lf c arr ie d it aro un d in

his- 6 - 1 po c ke t. T he or ig ina l pi c tur e fa de d a nd the do c ume nt itse lf be c a me “ a lmo st tor n, ” so Ni angtoo k it 2 to the head of

the re fug ee c amp. The c amp hea d took it from him, repla ced the picture w ith a new 3 one, made photocopies of the document, and gave a copy to Niang

. That was the l ast Niang saw of 4 the orig inal. 5 Whe n a sk e d b y the jud g e ho w ol d he was in t he pic tur e on

the Ma ur ita nia n id e nti ty 6 document, Niangreplied that he wa s ab o u t s i x t een year s old. The I J inquired of Nia ng why two 7 differ ent ty

pewr iters had appar ently been used for differ ent parts of the docume n t ; p et i t ioner 8 re sp on de d th a t he did no t kn owho w i t w a s ma de . N iangsa id t hat he le ft the Ma ur ita nia n id e nti ty 9 do c ume nt p ho toc op y wi th h is f

ri e nd Mamad ou Ba, wh o h a d a dv ise d h im n ot t o tr a ve l w ith 10 documents indicating two differ ent identities ( the identity paper s and B a’s pa ssport). Afte r ar riving 11 in the United States, Niangcalled B a in Seneg al and ha d him fax i t to America

. 12 2. TheSe ne

ga le se Re fuge e Id e nti ty Car d 13 14 The sec ond cruc ial document admitted into evidenc e by t h e I J i s the Seneg alese ref ug ee 15 identity

car d. Petitioner submitt ed the orig inal of t his document to the I mmigration Court. L ike the 16 Ma

ur ita n i a n i d e nt i t y d o c u m e nt , the Se ne g a le se re fu g e e ide nti ty c ard state s p e tit ion e r’ s p la c e and date 17 of birth. I t, too, has a photogr aph, ag ain appar ently of Niang , but differ ent from the pic ture on the 18 Mauritanian ide ntity document. I t was stamped on January 31, 2002. 19 Niangclaimed he was fir st issued with such a car d shortly afte r he a nd his family

arr ived at 20 the re fug ee c amp. Thoug h petitioner himself sometimes had possession of his re fug ee ide ntity car d, 2 1 he gene rally

le f t i t w it h th e h e a d

o f th e c a mp s o th a t h e w o u ld n o t l o s e it

. Wh e nth e ju d g e a s k ed 22 Nianghow old he wa s in the picture on the S eneg alese ref ug ee ide ntity

car d, Niangsaid: “L ike 12.”- 7 - 1 The g overnme nt attorney alleg ed that Nianghad a mustac he whe n the photog raph w as take n. Niang 2 denied that claim, saying “may be it’s the picture is like that.” Niangasser ted that he lef

t the ref ug ee 3 car d behind when he left the ca mp in 1994. But when a

pply ing f or asylum in the United States, he 4 rem emb eredth e card . He wr o t e to Ba andask ed h im to ret ri eve i t. AtNi ang’s requ est , Ba 5 a p p r o a c h e d t h e h e a d

o f t h e r e f u g e e c a mp , w h o a tt h a tt i m e w a s i nD a k ar t r yi n g t o r a i s e m o n e y. 6 Armed w it

h th e p h o to c o p y

o f N ia n g ’ s M a u r it an ia n id e n ti ty d o c u me n t, B a

s u c c e e d e d

in o b ta ining 7 the Seneg alese ref ug ee ide ntity

car d, and mailed it to Niangin the United States. 8 II. Th e IJ’s De cision 9 10 The I J rende red his de cision orally at the close of the hear ing. He reje cted th e a pplication 11 in i ts e nti re ty , a

nd or de re d N iangre mov e d f ro m th e Un ite d St a te s. 12 Wit h respe ct to the asylum claim, the I J found that petitioner ha d filed it more than one y ear 13 afte r his entry

int o t h e Un ited States. Be cause Niangwas una ble to show any

exceptional 14 circ umstances justify ing the late filing, the I J prete rmitted the application insofar as it claimed 15 a sylum

. 16 The I J then denied N iang ’s claims for withholding under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and the CAT. 17 He he ld t

hat N iangha d f

a ile d to me e t his burd e n of pr ov ing that he ha d be e n pe rs e c ute d in t he pa st 18 or would be perse cuted or tortured if remove d. I n short, the I J did not believe that Nia ng was who 19 he said he was. This ad v er s e cr ed ibilit y deter mination was not based on the I J ’s assessment of 20 Niang ’s demea

nor. The I J , admirably , made this clea r: “When deme anor doe sn’t cause any conce rn 21 or problem with me, I like to say that. That’s the c ase he re. . . . I felt that his manner

of speaking w as 22 totally

consistent with somebody who had lived throug h what he sa i d h e d id.” I nstead, the I J ’s- 8 - 1 rea sons f

or disbelieving Niang conce rned the identity documents. Thoug h the I J acc epte d t h at 2 petitioner’s name was Souley mane Nia ng , he doubted that the ide ntity documents we re g enuine. 3 The judg e see med to rely on four r easons f

or finding t h at the docume nts, and Niang ’s 4 testimony

about them, wer e not cr edible. F irst, the I J did not cre dit Niang ’s explanation of how he 5 c a me to h a ve the Se ne g a le se re fu g e e do c ume nt. I t se e med “rathe r u nli ke ly ” that an id e nti ty 6 document “w ould not be held by the person it identifies.” Moreover , it was “fa rfe tched” for Nia

ng 7 to say

that he had “ neve r s ee n ” the re fug ee doc ument while he wa s there, a nd then to say

that he 8 wanted to be sure to g et a c opy afte r he le ft. Second, the I J deter m i n ed t h at Niang ’s testimony 9 conce rning his ag e in the photogr aphs was inacc urate

. The I J seeme d to think that Niangclaimed 10 to be t welve in both pictures. The I J acc epted that he was “not an expert in fore nsics or deve lopment 11 of children or any thing like that,” but t houg ht such expertise unnec essar y in this case. Speakingof 12 the picture on the M auritania n identity document, in which Nia

ng actua lly

claimed to be sixteen, the 1 3 I J s tate d : “ [I ]t ’ s a matu r e ma n ’ s f a c e . I t’ s n ot a child.” An d, a s to the Se ne g a le se re fu g e e ide nti ty 14 car d, wher e the I J did not acc ept t he gover nment’s contention that the per son in the photogr aph had 15 a mustache , he neve rtheless c oncluded that “ this is older than a 12-y ear -old.” Third, the Mauritanian 16 identity

document had “ very

clea rly ” bee n altere d, althoug h it was “c onceiva ble” the c hang es we re 17 ma de in t

he re fu g e e c a mp. F ourt h, the I J found

it qu e sti on a

ble that th e Ma

ur ita nia n id e nti ty 18 do c ume nt i nd ic a te d th a t N iangwa s a “ bu sin e ssm an or co mme rc ia l fig ur e .” F or a ll the se re a so ns , 19 the I J decide d that neither doc ument was g enuine. 2 0 F r o m t h i s f i n d i n g o n t h e d o c u m e n t s , t h e IJ c o n c l u d e d t h a tN i an g h a d

n o tt e s t i f i e d “ c o r r e c t [ l y] 21 or truthfully

about them.” Give n this “cra ck in t he vase,” the I J deter mined that Niang ’s testimony 22 was not cr edible. He rea ched this dec ision “with a littl e bit of m isgiving s” because he didn’t “seeNiangdoes not cha lleng e the a g ency ’s finding that his asy lum claim was untimely filed. 2

- 9 - 1 [or] hear

any thing in his testimony

itself that sounds made up.” Neve rtheless, he thought “ a diffe rent 2 explanation of the documents would come or differ ent documents would be he re if he wer e telling 3 the wh ole tr

uth .” Re fu sin g to a c c e pt Ni ang ’s sto ry , the I J d e nie d the wi thh old ingand CA T c la ims 4 for f

ailure to mee t the burden of proof. 5 L astly , the I J conclude d that, assuming Niang had suffe red perse cution in M au ri tania, 6 conditions there had not fundame ntally chang ed such that his life or fre edom would no longe r be 7 thr e a te ne d. Th e e vid e nc e fr om t he State De pa

rtme nt w a s c on fl ic tin g ; th ou g h th e re we re so me 8 indications that people we re r eturning , Mauritania still had “a very bad human r ights re cord.” 9 III. Th e BIA’s De cision 10 11 On Dec ember 22, 2004, the B I A adopted a nd aff irmed the I J ’s dec ision pretermitting N ia n g ’s 12 asylum application as untimely

. I n addition, the BIA held that the I J corr ectly deter mined that Niang 13 had fa iled cre dibly to establish his identit y . The B oard found no err or in the I J ’s deter mination that 14 Ni angha d n ot ca rr ie d his bur de n of pr ov ing that he pos se sse d a lik e lih oo d o f f

utu re pe rs e c uti on

if 15 he returned to Mauritania. I n one respect, however , the B I A see med to g o further than the I J , noting 1 6 “ t h a tt h e r e c o r d

i n d i c a t e s t h a tt h e c u r

r e n t s i t u a t i o ni nM a

u r i t an i a h a s i mp r o v e d

dr a m a t i c a l l y, 17 le sse nin g the lik e lih oo d o f p e rs e c uti on .” Ac c or din g ly , th e B oa rd dis mis se d N iang ’s a

pp e a l. 18 Th is p e tit ion fo r r e vie w o f t

he a g e ncy ’s den ial of N iang ’s wi thh old ingand CA T c la ims 19 followed. 2 20Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t th e I J fa ile d e ve n to make an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ing , bu t it is t ole ra bly 3 c le ar that th e I J re lie d o n N iang ’s state me nts a bo ut t he do c ume nts to f

ind his te sti mony

inc re dib le as a w hole.

- 10 - D I S CUS S I ON 1

2 W here , a s h e re , th e B I A a do pts the de c isi on of the I J, an d s up ple me nts that de c isi on , th is 3 Court r eviews the decision of the I J as supplemented by the B I A. See Y

an Chen v. Gonzales , 417 4 F.3d 268, 275 ( 2d Cir. 2005). 5 I. P ast P erse cution 6 A. The A dverse Credibility Finding 7 8 The pe tition attacks the I J ’s finding s that Niang submitt ed identity documents that we re not 9 g enuine, a

nd that he testified untruthfully about them. Findingvarious errors in the r easoning 1 0 l ea d i n g t o t h e IJ ’s ad v er s e c re d i b i l i t y d ec i s i o n , we v ac at e a n d

re m an d t h at fi n d i n g. 3 11 Th is C ourt re vie ws the a g e nc y ’s fa c tual fi nd ing s, inc lud ingits a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty 12 deter

mina t i o n s , under the substantial evidence standard, tr eatingthem as “c onclusive unless any 13 rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). 14 Ne vert hel ess, the c ourt wi ll v a c a te and

re mand fo r n e w f

ind ing s if the a g e nc y ’s re a so nin g or its 15 fac t-finding proce ss was suffic iently flawe d. See Cao HeLin v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 428 F.3d 391, 16 40 6 ( 2d

Cir . 2 00 5) ; Tia n- Y

on g Ch e n v . I

NS , 3 59 F .3 d 1 21 , 1 29 (2d C ir . 2 00 4) . A n a dv e rs e 17 c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n mu st b e ba se d o n “ sp e c if ic , c og e nt r e a so ns ” that “ be ar a l e g iti ma te ne xus” 18 to the finding . S

e c aid a-Ro sa le s v . I NS , 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003) (interna l quotation marks 19 and citations omitted).- 11 - 1 Particular de fer ence is give n to th e t ri er o f fact’s asse ssment of demea nor. See M

ajidi v. 2 Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 ( 2d Cir. 2005). To his cre dit, the I J expressly stated that he f

ound no 3 fa ult wi th N iang ’s de me ano r. Pe tit ion e r’ s “ma nn e r o f s pe a kin g ” wa s, in t he e y e s o f t

he I J, “t ota lly 4 consi stent with somebody who had lived throug h what he sa id he did.” Thus , o ne of the mos t 5 power ful rea sons to de fer to a n I J ’s adver se cre dibilit y finding is a bsent in this ca se. See W

ensheng 6 Y an v. Muk

asey, –– F.3d ––, 2007 WL4233379, at *3 (2d Cir. De c. 4, 2007) ( stressing the 7 importance of witness deme anor a s a re ason for appellate courts to give defere nce to a fa ct-finde r’s 8 ana ly sis of

te sti mony

) ; see also Zhou Y

un Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d C ir. 2004), overruled 9 in part on other grounds, Shi L iang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 494 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2007) 10 (en ba

nc). 11 The I J relied solely on his own finding of docume nt fraud to r eac h the conc lusion that Niang 12 was not cr edible. The I J acknow ledg ed that he was not a n “expert” on f

orensics, but this alone doe s 13 not rende r his decision sus pect. Thoug h often helpful, an ex pert report wil l not be necessar y in ever y 1 4 ca s e t o s u

p p o rt a f i n d i n g t h at a d o cu m en ti s fr au d u l en t

. An I J i s fu l l y

en t i t l edt o m ak e f

i n d i n gs 15 conce rning the authenticity of submitt ed evidenc e, based on her own examination an d her 16 profe ssional analy sis. Such findings will ordinarily merit defe renc e. See, e .g., Borovikov a v. U.S. 17 Dep’ t of Justice, 435 F.3d 151, 157- 58 (2d Cir. 2006). B ut we have ref used to cre dit the I J ’s finding 18 that submitt ed documents wer e false when we have deter mined that the I J based his conc lusion on 19 unjustified assumptions and eng ag ed in unsupported spe culation. Se e Li Zu Gu an v . I NS , 453 F.3d 2 0 1 2 9 , 1 3 9 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Secaida-Rosales , 331 F.3d at 297). 21 Certainly , the B I A has found that an I J may appropr iately

base a n adver se cr edibility

finding 22 on the fr a

ud ule nt su bmi ss io n o f a do cum e nt. See M atter of O-D- , 21 I . & N . Dec . 1079, 1082-83- 12 - 1 (B .I .A. 1998). And we have approve d such reasoning , wher e the ag ency relied on a firmly g rounded 2 expert finding of docume nt fraud to r eac h the conc lusion that an applicant wa s dissembling in her 3 oral testimony

. Borovikov a , 435 F.3d at 157- 58. Moreove r, we r ece ntly held in Siewe v. G onzales , 4 48 0 F .3 d 1 60 (2 d Cir. 20 07 ), tha t “ [f] alsus in uno is a natura l and instinctive tool of the fac tfinder, 5 like a ca

rpente r’s hammer or plumber ’s wre nch,” id. a t 17 1, and “ a sin g le fa lse do c ume nt o r a sin g le 6 i n s t an c e o f

f a l s e t e s t i m o n y m ay ( if attributable to t h e p et i t i o ner) infec t the balanc e of the alien’s 7 uncorr oborat ed o r u n authenticated evidenc e.” Id . at 17 0. (e mph a sis a dd e d) . B ut n e ith e r i n 8 Borovikov a nor in Siewe did we ho ld that c on c e rn s a

bo ut do c ume nt a

uth e nti c ity , a s c on tr a ste d w ith 9 a va lid fi nd ingof

fr a ud , c ou ld p ro vid e a

su ff ic ie nt b a sis fo r d isc re dit ingan a pp li can t’ s o the rw ise 10 cre dible testimony

. As the Seventh Circuit ha s noted, there is a “g aping hole” be tween a finding that 11 a docume nt submit ted by an applica

nt is not authentic, and a holdin g t hat the witness’s testimony 12 is invented. Kou rsk i v . A sh c ro ft , 355 F.3d 1038, 1039 (7th Cir. 2004)

. That hole, all the more g aping 13 wh e re the pe tit ion e r’ s te sti mony and de me ano r su pp or t hi s c a se , c an o nly

be br idg e d w he re the fa c t14 finder ha s rea son to believe that the a pplicant knows or suspect s that the document is fa lse. Id. at 15 1040 (“[I ]f the applicant has no rea son to know that the docume nt is forg ed, its exi stence does not 16 undermine his cr edibility . . . .”). 17 I n the instant c ase, the rec ord does not pr ovide a substantial basis for c oncluding that Niang ’s 18 identity

documen t s u n d ermine his cr edibility . The I J ’s dec ision was infec ted by sever al er

rors of 19 rea soning. A s noted above, the I J appea red to base his determination that the doc uments in question 20 wer e fr audulent on four stated re asons. Eac h of these is in some wa y problematic. 21 F ir st, the I J app e a re d to mis c ha

ra c te ri ze Nia

ng ’s te sti mony a s to how he ha d co me to p os se ss 22 the Seneg alese re fu gee i dentity car d. Contrary

to the I J ’s dec ision, Niang did not say that he had- 13 - 1 “neve r see n” that docume nt. Rather, he c laimed only that he had g ener ally

left it in the custody

of 2 the refug ee camp authorities so that he would not lose it, and that he took possession of it when he 3 need ed i t

. This error sever ely undermines the I J ’s conc lusion that it was “ far fetc hed” that Niang 4 woul d l at er r eca ll the exi stence of the c ard. A dditionally , it is not inhere ntly “unlikely ” that an 5 ide nti ty do c ume nt w ou ld n ot a lw ay s b e he ld b y the pe rs on

it i de nti fi e s, bu t w ou ld i ns te a d b e he ld 6 for sa feke eping by the re fug ee c amp authorities that issued it, particula rly wher e the holder

is an 7 orphane d child living in the ca mp. Hence , t h e I J ’s re

j ection of Niang ’s explanation for the 8 provena

nce of the document doe s not comport with our require ment that the ag ency “g ive spec ific, 9 cog ent re asons for rejec ting the pe titioner’s testimony .” Ra ms am e ac hir e v . A sh c ro ft , 357 F.3d 169, 10 178 (2d Cir. 2004) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). 11 Se c on d, the I J misund e rs too d o r m isr e me mbe re d Ni ang ’s te sti mony c on c e rn inghis a g e in 1 2 the p h o to g r a

p h s , e r r o n e o u s ly lump in g to g e th e r tw o d if f e r e n t p ic tu

r e s . A p p ar e n tl y a s s u mi n g that 1 3 N i an g cl ai m edt o b e t we l v e y ea rs o l d i nt h e p i ct u re o nt h e M au ri t an i an i d en t i t y d o cu m en t , t h e IJ 14 c on c lud e d th a t th e pic tur e wa s in fa c t of a “matur e man. ” I n f a c t, N iangc la ime d une qu ivo c a lly to 15 be six teen y ea rs old in that picture. This leave s intact the I J ’s skepticism as to Niang ’s ag e in the 16 picture on the Seneg alese ref ug ee ide ntity

car d, in which Niangdid in fact c laim to be twelve. B ut 17 the I J conce ded that he w as not an ex p er t i n ch i l d development, a nd noted that he did not see a 18 mus ta c he . M or e imp or tantl y , th is f

ind ingmay

we ll h a ve be e n in fl ue nc e d b y the I J’s erro r as to 19 Niang ’s testimony conce rning his ag e in the other picture. 2 0 Third, the I J ’s fi n d i n g t h at t h e M au ri t an i an i d en t i t y d o cu m en th ad“v ery

cl ea rl y ” b ee nal t er ed, 21 beca

use more tha

n one ty pewr iter had a

ppare ntly been use d in its construction, provides only scant 22 support for his finding of docume nt fraud. N iang himself stated straig ht out that the document had- 14 - 1 be e n a lt ered by

the re pla c e me nt o f i ts p ic tur e , a nd a llo we d th a t, at th e same tim e , th e c a mp 2 a uth or iti e s may

have a lso ma de c ha

ng e s to its te xt. T he I J note d th is e xplanatio n, bu t di sc ounte d it 3 wi tho ut m or e . Of a ll the I J’s re a so ns fo r dou bti ngthe do c ume nts , th is w a s p e rh a ps the be st. B ut, 4 as ev i d en ce t h at Ni an g him se lf knew he was submitting a f raudule nt document, the fa ct that more 5 than one ty

pewr iter mig ht have be en used is, in the full conte x t of this case, insuff icient. 6 Finally , the I J ’s re liance on the fac t that the word “commer çant” appea rs on the Maur itanian 7 identity

document wa s also based on a mi staken assumpti on. The he aringtranscr ipt shows that the 8 I J misunderstood Niang to have testified at one p o i n t that the identity car d belong ed to his father , 9 rathe r than to Nianghimself. Niangin fac t te stified that his f ather had obtained the c ard f rom the 10 Ma

ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt o n h is b e ha lf and that the pr of e ssi on ind ic a te d on th e c ard wa s th a t of

his 11 fathe r. Ther e is no indication that in rea ching his de cis ion the I J considere d Niang ’s explanation. 12 Se e Cao HeLin , 428 F.3d at 403 (emphasizing that an I J i s n o t require d to cre dit an applicant’ s 13 explanations even if they appea r plausible on a c old rec ord, but is require d to take the e x planations 14 into account)

. 15 At most, when taken tog ether an d cure d of fa ctual er rors, the I J ’s spec ulations support 16 suspicions that the documents wer e not g enuine. B ut, give n the tenuousness of the se sus p icions, they 17 c ann ot g ro un d a

n a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n, wh e re pe tit ion e r’ s te sti mony wa s o therwis e 18 convincingand consistent, a n d wh er e the I J stated expressly that he hea

rd nothing that “sounded 1 9 ma d e u

p . ” A c c o r d in g ly , w e f

in d th a t th e I J’ s a d v e r s e c r e d ib il it y f in d in g w a s n o t s u

p p o rte d by 20 substantial evidence

. 21 22- 15 -

B. Corr oboration 1 2 The g overnme nt contends, neve rtheless, t h at remand would be futile. I t relies on an 3 a lte rn a tiv e g ro un d, no t sp e c if ic a lly me nti on e d b y

t he B I A, bu t, a c c or din g to t he g ov e rnme nt, imp lic it 4 in i ts d e c isi on : th a t N iangpr ov ide d in a de qu a te c or ro bo ra tiv e e vid e nc e in s up po rt

of his c la ims . T his 5 argument, too, however , is unavailing

. Cf. Ky aw Zw ar Tun v . I NS , 445 F.3d 554 , 5 6 7 -6 8 (2 d C ir. 6 2006) (r efusingto acc ept an I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination, but deny ing r eview on the 7 alternative basis that the applica nt failed to pre sent rea sonably available corr oborative e vidence ). 8 I n this respec t, the g overnme nt relies on th e I J ’s statement, upon which the BIA did not 9 elabor ate, that “ a diffe rent e x planation of the doc uments would come or dif fe re nt d oc um e nts wo uld 1 0 b e h e r e if [N ia

n g ] w e r e te ll in g th e whole truth.” (empha sis added). The g overningregulations 11 pr ov ide our s tart ingpo int : “ [t]he te sti mony of the a pp lic ant, if c re dib le , may be su ff ic ie nt t o s us ta in 12 the burd e n of pr oo f wi tho ut c or ro bo ratio n. ” 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( b) . B ut t his Court ha s st a te d th a t, i n 13 the rig ht circumstanc es, the a g ency may deny relief to a petitioner on the gr ound that she has failed 14 to provide suffic ient corr oboration for her othe rwise c redible te stimony

. Di allo v . I NS , 232 F.3d 279, 1 5 285-8 6 ( 2 d

Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )

. Re c o g n iz in g th e d an g e r s o f r e qu ir in g to o mu c h f

r o m a p p li c an ts , w e have 16 require d that the ag ency provide a specific , rea soned basis for relying on the absenc e of c orrobor ative 17 evidenc e. Id. a t 29 0; Qi u v. As hc ro ft , 329 F.3d 140, 153 ( 2d Cir. 2003), ov e rru le d o n oth e r g ro un ds , 18 Shi Liang L in, 494 F.3d at 305. I n this case, the I J did not id en t i fy t h e “differ ent documents” he 19 thought “ would be her e” if Niang wer e telling the truth, and hence ran afoul of our require ment that 20 the ag ency “must (a) identify the particula r piec es of missing, r eleva nt documentation, and ( b) show 21 that the documentation at issue wa s rea sonably available to the petitioner.” Qi u , 329 F.3d at 153. 22 Particularly in light of N i ang ’s submission of documentary evidenc e deta iling per secutionI nd e e d, the I J hims e lf a c c e pte d th a t “ [t]he kin d o f p e rs e c uti on [Nia ng ] suf fe r[e d], a c c or din g to 4 his testimony , is very

strong . . . .”

- 16 - 1 in Mauritania, and his appar ently cre dible testimony that he was a victim of t hat persecution, the I J ’s 2 throwaw ay

ref ere nce to unspe cified “ differ en t documents” c annot provide a n adequate basis for 3 denying pe titioner’s claims. Se e Di allo , 232 F.3d at 289 (r em an ding the claims of a Ma uritanian 4 applicant be cause “the B I A did not expl ain why it was rea sonable to exp ec t provision of such 5 materia ls under its own standar ds”). 6 II. Th e BIA’s Changed Country Condi tions Dete rm ination 7 8 B e c a

us e we va c a te the a g e nc y ’s fi nd ing that N iangwa s n ot p e rs e c ute d b e fo re he c a me to t his 9 country , we c onsider an a lternative possible g round for upholding its de cision to de ny his application 1 0 for with h o ld in g o f r e mo v a l u

n d e r 8 U

. S. C. 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 )

. T o qu a li f y f o r w it h h o ld in g , ana

p p li c a nt 11 must show that her “ life or f ree dom would be threatened” in the country to which the g overnme nt 12 seeks to re move her beca use of he r “r ace , relig ion, nationality , membershi p i n a p ar t icular soc ial 13 g roup, or

po lit ic a l op ini on .” 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( b) . O n it s f a c e , N iang ’s sto ry

wo uld a pp e a r t o 14 qu a lif

y a s pa st perse cution on acc ount of his rac e, and h en ce t o g ive rise to the pr esumption of a 15 futur e thr e a t pr ov ide d f or by the re g ulatio ns. See 8 C.F.R. 208.16(b)( 1). That pr esumption can, 4 1 6 h o w e v e r , b e re b u t t edb y a s h o wi n g b y

t h e go v ern m en tth at t h er e h as b ee na “ fu n d am en t al ch an ge 17 in circumstanc es such that the applicant’ s life or fre edom would not be threatened on a ccount of any 18 of the five g rounds . . . .” Id. T h e g o v e r n m e n tb e ar s th e b u r d e no f p r o v i n g s u c h a

c h an g e b y a 19 preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. See, e.g

. , Makadji v. G onzales , 470 F.3d 450, 458 ( 2d Cir. 2006) 20 (vac ating the denial of withholding to a Mauritanian applicant who had established past perse cutionNeither

the I J nor the B I A addr essed Nia ng ’s claim under

the CAT sepa

rate ly from his claim for 5 withholding. And though petitioner has clea rly not a bandoned that claim, neither party has direc ted specific attention to it in i ts submis sions to thi s Court. I n these circumstance s, we re mand the CAT claim along with the withholding cla im. See, e .g., Biao Y ang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 272 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (“ [I ]t is for the a g ency to make eligibility deter

minations in the first instance. Be cause . . . we rema nd this case to the a g ency , the ag ency shoul d al s o ad dress [petitioner’s] eligibility for CAT relief on rema nd.” (c itation omit ted)).

- 17 - 1 be c a

us e the I J n e g le c te d to p la c e thi s b ur de n o n th e g ov e rnme nt) . In th is c a se , th e I J dec lin e d to ru le 2 that circ umstances ha d chang ed funda mentally , noting that Mauritania was “still a country that has 3 a ver

y bad human r ights recor d,” ruled by a “mili tary dictator.” Depa rting in this respe ct from the 4 I J ’s deter

mination, the BIA s ee m ed t o s ay t hat eve n if Niang ’s ac count wer e true , he should be 5 denied r elief be cause “the r ecor d indicates that the c urre nt situation i n Mauritania ha s improved 6 dramatically , lessening the likelihood of perse cution.” 7 We hold that the BIA provided insuff icient reasoni ng to support its finding of c hang ed 8 coun t ry

co n d i t ions. See P oradisova v. Gonzales , 420 F.3d 70, 77 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (“D espite our 9 g e ne ra lly

de fe re nti a l r e vie w o f I J and B I A o pin ion s, we re qu ir e a c e rt a in m ini mum

le ve l of ana ly sis 10 . . . and indee d mu s t re quire such if judicial revie w is to be meaning ful.”) T he ag ency ’s re jection 11 of Niang ’s withholding a nd CAT claims, there fore , cannot be upheld on this alternate g round. 5 1 2 T h e B IA ’ s o n e - l i n e s t a t e m e n t t h a t c o n d i t i o n s i nM a u r i t an i a h a v e “ i mp r o v e d

dr a m a t i c a l l y” 13 does not suffice as a holding that a fundame ntal chang e of circ umstances occur red. True, our Court 14 ha s h e ld t

hat “ wh e re . . . c ha

ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s e v ide ntl ypr e v ail in a country

that is the subject of 1 5 an ap p re ci ab l e p ro p o rt i o no f a s y l u m cl ai m s ... an i m m i gra t i o n j u d ge ne edn o ten t er s p ec i fi c f i n d i n gs 16 premised on r ecor d evidenc e when making a finding of cha ng ed countr

y conditions under the I

NA.” 17 Hoxhallari v. Gonzales , 46 8 F .3 d 17 9, 18 7 (2 d Cir

. 20 06 ) (p e r c ur iam) (empha sis added). B ut we 18 have sin c e sa id t

hat Ho x ha lla ri stands for the “ uncontrove rsial propositions that [ i] this Court i s not- 18 - 1 ignor ant of indisputable historical e vents (such as the par tition of I ndia, the bre ak-up of the Ottoman 2 Empire, or the fall of Comm u n ist reg imes in the Ba lkans), and [ii] we will not assume that the 3 ag ency suffe rs from such ignor ance .” Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales , 494 F.3d 260, 272 ( 2d Cir. 2007). 4 Clearly , no “indisputable historical e vent” supports the B I A’s decision, wher e the I J , relying 5 on the ve ry same re c or d e vid e nc e , r e a c he d th e op po sit e c on c lus ion , a nd e xpla in ed in det ail h is 6 rea sons for doing so. Since Ho x ha lla ridoes not apply , the normal re quirements for a valid fa ctual 7 deter

mination remain in forc e. The ag ency must provide a rea soned basis for its decision, Be

sk ov ic 8 v . Gonzales , 4 6 7 F.3d 223, 227 ( 2d Cir. 2006), and must premise that de cision on substantial 9 evidenc e in the re cord, Tambadou v.Gonzales , 446 F .3 d 298 , 303 -0 4 (2d Cir . 200 6)

. Ne ith e r o f t he se 1 0 r e qu ir e me n ts is s a ti s f ie d b y a b a ld a s s e rti o nth a t c o n d it io n s in M a u r it an ia h a v e “ im

p r o v ed 11 dramatically .” 12 C ONCL US I ON 13 14 We have identifie d flaws that g o to the hear t of th e age n cy ’s decision to deny Niang ’s 15 a pp lic a tio n. We c ann ot p re dic t w ithc on fi de nc e that, i n th e a bs e nc e of the se e rr or s, the a g e nc y wo uld 16 rea ch the same conclusion, and, as a result, rema nd is not futile. See Xiao Ji Chen , 471 F.3d at 335; 17 Cao HeLin , 4 2 8 F

. 3 d a t 3 9 5. Ac co rd ingly , we G RA NT the petition for re view, VA CA TE the 18 decision of the B I A to the ex tent that it denies Niang ’s claims for withholding of r emoval and CAT 19 relief

, and REMAND the ca se for further p ro ceeding s consistent with this opi nion. Petiti oner’ s mot ion fo r a sta y of re mov a l pe nd ingthe ou tc ome of thi s a pp e a l is DI SM ISSED a s mo ot.