Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should n ot * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60130

G I RM AY AY U H U N EY ASR ES P et i t i on er v. ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L R esp on d en t

Pet i t i o n f

o r Rev i e w o f

a n Ord e r o f

t he B o a r d o f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 94 922 850

B ef ore W IE N E R , G A R Z A , an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P et i t i on er G i rm ay A yu h u n ey A sres seek s revi ew of the ord er of the B oard of I m m i grati on A pp eal s ( “ B IA ” ) af f i r m i ng t he i m m i gr at i o n j udg e ’ s ( “ IJ’ s) deci si on denyi ng r el i ef

under t he C onvent i on A gai nst T or t ure ( “ C A T”) an d or der i ng t hat h e b e r e m o v e d fr o m th e U n it e d S t a t e s . C o n c lu d in g th a t t h e B I A ’s a n d t h e I J ’s de c i s i o ns a r e s upp o r t e d b y s ubs t ant i ale vi de nc e , w e de ny Asr e s ’ s pe t i t i o n. United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

See 8U .S .C

. § 1 2 2 5 (b )( 1 )( A )(I), (ii); 8C .F .R

. § 1 2 3 5 .3 (b )( 4). 1 2

I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS A s r e s i s a n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f E r i t r e a w h o w a s b o r n i n 1 9 7 4
. H e c l a i ms t hatpr i o r t o hi s 200 6 ar r i va l i n t he U ni t e d St at e s , he w as c o ns c r i pt e d i nt o , a nd l at e r d ese r t e d, t he Er i t r e an m i l i t ar y. Ac c o r di ng t o Asr e s , he s e r ve d i n t he
m i l i t ary f

rom 199 4 to 199 6 an d agai n f rom 199 8 t o 200 6. H e cl ai m s t o ha ve been i m pr i s o ne d t w i c e dur i ng hi s pe r i o ds o f m i l i t ar y s e r vi c e — o nc e f o r f i f t e e n m o nt hs bec ause he w as unabl e t o di g a hol e b ec ause of an i nj ury th a t a super i or had in flic te d o n A s r e s ’ s h a n d a fte r h e h a d a s k e d a b o u t d e m o c r a c y a n d re p e a te d ly
r e que s t e d l e av e t o vi s i t hi s fam i l y, a nd o nc e f o r t hi r t e e n m o nt hs a f t e r i nqui r i ng abou t a f

ri en d n am ed Y on atan w h o al l eged l y w as ki l l ed by m i l i t ary of f i cers becau s e t he y t ho ugh t he ha d b e t r ay e d t he m . As r e s t e s t i f i e d t hatpri son c o ndi t i o ns w e r e b ad a nd t hathe , al on g w i t h o t he r s , ha d s uf fe r e d t o r t ur e a nd
s e e n pr i s o ne r s t ak e n aw ay t o be ki l l e d. A s r e s c o nt e nds t hati n J anua r y 20 06 , he
es c aped f

r om pri so n w hi l e bei ng t aken t o t he r es t r oo m . H e t hen hi d f or s eve r al
m ont hs be f

or e c r os si ng i nt o Sudan and subs equent l y t r avel i ng t hro ugh se ver al
c o u n tr ie s , fin a lly a r r iv in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s la te r th a t y e a r . W he n A sres e nt e r e d t he U ni t e d St at e s , t he D e pa r t m e nt o f H o m e l and S ecuri ty app rehen ded hi m an d d et erm i n ed that he w as i n ad m i ssi bl e un der 8 U

. S

. C

. § 11 8 2 (a)( 7 )(A )(i )( I) b eca u se he d i d n ot p oss ess a va l i d en try d o c u m e n t. A sres w as ref

erred t o an a syl u m of f i cer f or a “ credi bl e fear” i n t ervi ew becau se h e ha d i n di ca te d a n i n t en t i on t o app l y f or asyl u m an d exp ress ed a fear of persecuti on or t ort u re. In t h at i n t ervi ew , A sres t est i f i ed t h a t h e feared 1 ret u rni n g t o E ri t rea becau se he h ad escap ed f rom a pri son there an d beli eved t hatt he g o ve r nm e nt o f Eri t r e a w o ul d ki l l hi m f o r hav i ng do ne s o . Det e r m i ni ng t h at A sres h ad m ad e credi bl e stat em en t s and ha d est abli shed a cr edi bl e fear of t o r t ur e, the as yl um o f f i c e r c o nc l ude d t hatAsr e s de m o ns t r at e d “ a s i gni f i c ant Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

See8C .F .R

. § 2 0 8 .3 0 (f ) (o u tlinin gp ro ce dure s f orap os itive cr edib ilityf in di n g). 2 Th e F or m I -5 8 9als o mayb e u se d toa pp lyf orCATr elie f. 3 See 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a) (42) (A) (d efi ning “re fugee ”)

. Altho ugh asylu m re quire s only a 4 “well-fo und ed fe ar,” w it hho ldin g of re moval r equires that per secuti on be “more likely tha n not.” See Mwembie v. Gonzales , 4 4 3 F .3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 0n .9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 3 p o s s ib ility th a t h e co u ld e s ta b lis h e lig ib ility fo r re lie f u n d e r th e [C A T ].” Th er ef or e, i n l at e D ec em ber2006, t he o f f i c er i ss ued A sres a N oti c e t o Appear bef ore an IJ f

or f u l l consi derati on of h i s cl ai m s. A sres t h en sub m i t t ed a F orm 2 I- 5 8 9 , A p p lic a tio n fo r A s y lu m a n d fo r W ith h o ld in g o f R e m o v a l. 3 At hi s i ni t i al ap pe ar anc e be f o r e t he I J, Asr e s c o nc e de d r e m o va bi l i t y and
r e que s t e d ( 1) a s yl um , ( 2) w i t hholdi ng o f r e m o va l , a nd ( 3) pr o t e c t i o n und e r t he C A T. The I J hel d a hear i ng on t he m er i t s i n A pri l 2007. O nl y Asr es t es t i f i ed at t hat hear i ng, bu t he s ubm i t t ed do c um ent ar y e vi denc e w hi c h i ncl uded hum an
r ig h ts re p o r ts a b o u t E r itr e a a n d th r e e p h o to g r a p h s th a t p u r p o r te d to s h o w h im i n m i l i t ar y uni f

or m . The IJ i ss ued an or aldec i si on c onc l udi ng t hat A sr es w as
n ot cr edi bl e an d t h at h e h ad fai l ed t o su st ai n h i s bu rden of provi n g el i gi bi l i t y f or
r e lie f. T h e IJ h e ld th a t A s r e s la c k e d cr e d ib ility b e c a u s e , in tera lia , he “di d n ot t e s t i f y i n a f o r t hr i ghta nd d i r e c t m anne r a nd a ppe ar e d t o be e va s i ve a l t ho ugh he
w as asked on m ore t h an one occasi on t o f ocus i n an d tr y t o an sw er t h e qu est i on t hatw as as ke d. ” The I J f ur t he r b as e d hi s c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i nat i o n o n m any per c ei ved i n con si st enc i es am ong Asr es ’ s r epr es ent at i ons . The I J hel d t hat A sres ’ s asyl u m an d w i t h h ol di n g of rem oval cl ai m s fai l ed b e ca u se h e ha d n ot show n a w el l

- f

ou n ded fear of

persecuti on b a se d o n a n y of t h e f i ve st atutor y gr o unds — r ac e , r e l i gi o n, nat i o nal i t y, m e m be r s hi p i n a par t i c ul arso c i alg r o up, or pol i t i c alopi ni on. As f or A sr es ’ s C A T c l ai m , the I J det er m i ned t hat al t hough 4 E ri trea n secu ri ty forces ha ve u sed tortu re, th a t fact a l on e w a s i n su ff i ci en t “ to est abli sh t h e respond en t ’ s el i gi bi l i t y f or r el i ef i n t h e absen ce of

cr edi bl e evi den ce or testim on y sp ecif

i c to this resp on d en t. ” Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

On March20 , 20 08, we summarilygranted Asres’s u noppo sed moti on for astay of 5 re mov a l pe n di n g revie w. B ec au se our de ci si on to day di sp os es of Asr es ’sp etitio n , wen owlif t the s tay. See 8U.S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)( 4). Th isru leis subj ec t tospe cifi c exce ptio n s li st edi n§ 1 2 5 2 (e). 6 Wang v. Holder , 5 6 9F .3 d 5 3 1 , 5 3 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9). 7 Ahmed v. Gonzales , 4 4 7F .3 d 4 3 3 , 4 3 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6); see Wang, 56 9 F .3d at 5 36. 8 4 P roceedi n g pro se, A sres app ea l ed on l y t h e I J’ s den i al of C A T prot ect i on t o t he BI A. Con s e que nt l y, t he a s yl um a nd wi t hho l di ng o f re m o va l c l ai m s a r e no lo n g e r a t is s u e . L a te r th a t y e a r, th e B IA a ffi r m e d t h e IJ ’ s d e cisio n d e n y in g re li e f, concl u di n g t h at “ [b] ecau se t h e res pon den t di d n ot t est i f y credi bl y w i t h res pect t o t he c e nt r alfac t s of fe r e d i n sup po r t of

hi s cl ai m t o C AT pr o t e c t i o n, w e f i nd n o reversibl e err or i n the Im m i grati on J u dg e’ s d et erm i n ati on t h at [A sres ] di d n ot p r o v e th a t h e w ill m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t b e s u b je c te d to fu tu r e to r tu r e in E r itr e a .” H av i ng r e t ai ne d c o uns e l , Asr e s f i l e d t he i ns t ant pe t i t i o n f o r r e vi e w o f

t he B IA ’ s d ecisi on . H ere , A sres u rg es prim a ri l y t h a t th e I J ’ s a d ve r s e cr ed i b i l i ty 5 determ i n ati on w as app l i cabl e onl y t o h i s cl ai m s f or asyl u m an d w i t h h ol di n g of
rem oval, not t o h i s desert i on - based C A T cl ai m . H e al so c on t en ds t h at hi s age, 3 4 y e a r s o ld , co n fir m s h is d e s e r te r s ta tu s , e x p la in in g th a t a ll E r itr e a n m e n o f h is age w er e c ons c r i pt ed i nt o m i l i t ar y s er vi c e. The A t t or ney G ener alr es ponds t hat t h e B IAan d IJ j u st i f i ably c on si dered A sr e s’s lack of cr edi bi l i t y an d w ere unconvi nce d t hat he had de se r t ed t he m i l i t ar y. II. A N A L Y S IS A . St andard of

R evi ew A peti t i on f

or r evi ew f

i l ed i n t h e court of

app eal s i s t h e excl u si ve m ean s of j u d i ci a l rev i ew of a n y claim u n d er th e C A T

. W e g en era l l y h a v e au th ority to 6 revi ew onl y t h e B IA ’ s deci si on , not t h e IJ’ s. Y et , w h en , as h ere, t h e B IAaf f i rm s 7 t h e I J i n rel i an ce on his reasoni n g, w e revi ew both deci si on s. 8 Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

E fev . As h crof

t , 2 9 3 F .3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 3 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 9 Tesfamichae l v. Gonzales , 4 6 9F .3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 10 Wang, 5 6 9F .3 d a t 5 3 7
. 11 I d

. O ur recent opini on in Wang inte rp re te d th e 2 0 0 5 R EAL I D Act§ 1 0 1 (a)( 3 ), (c) , 12 (h)( 2 ), Pub

. L

. 1 0 9 -1 3 , 1 1 9S tat. 3 0 2 , wh ich am en de d th e st a n dard s f orev a lu a ti n gwitn es s c r e dib il i t y i n a s yl u m c a s es . I d

. Wen oted that th e a mendment co nferr ed eve n gre ater discreti on on the IJto determi ne credibility , an d we a dopted theSec ond Circuit’s sta ndar d that “‘a n IJmayrely on anyinconsi stencyor om is s io n inmaking an adv erse credibility determi nationas lon g as th e ‘ totalityof the circu mstance s’ establi she s t ha t a n asylum a pp lica nt isn otc re dib le

. . . . Wedef erth er ef

or e toa nIJ ’sc re dib ilityd et er mi n a ti onu nle ss, fr omth e to talityo f th e circ ums tanc es , iti s p lainth a t n o re a so n ab lef a ct -f in de r co u ldmake such an adv erse credibilityrulin g.’” I d

. at 538 (quo ting Linv. Mu kasey , 534 F.3 d 16 2, 1 67 (2d C i r . 2 0 0 8) ( e m p h a s i s i n o ri gi n a l) )

. Li ke A sres, th e Wang pe titi on erp u rs u edaCATc laim

. Bec auseth e IJ made his credibility determi nation reg ardi ngasylum in the same procee ding in whichh e consi dered the CAT clai m, it is l ogicalth at the same de ferentialstan dard appli es to o ur review o f credibilitydete rmination s inbo th asylum and CAT clai ms. I n anyevent, in today’s ca se, Asres doe s no t challe nge direc tly the IJ ’s credibilitydete rmination , onlyth e sco pe of its effe ct.

Ch un v. I

NS , 40F. 3 d 76 , 78( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 4) (p erc u ri a m) (i nte rn a l qu ot a ti onmark s 13 om itte d)

. 5 W e revi ew t h e B IA ’ s and t h e I J’ s l egal h ol di n gs de no vo and t hei r fac t ual f i n di n gs f

or sub st an t i al evi den ce. U n der t h e st an da rd of substanti al evi den ce, 9
w e uph o l d fac t ualf i ndi ngs “ unl e s s t he e vi de nc e i s s o c o m pel l i ng t hatno
r e a s o n a b le fa c tfin d e r co u ld fa il to fin d o th e r w is e .” 10 It i s th e fa ct- fi n d er’ s d u ty to as ses s cred i b i l i ty, an d w e m a y n ot “su b sti tu te [ ou r] j u dg m en t f

or t h at of

the B IAor IJ w i t h respect t o fact u al fi n di n gs b ased on
c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i nat i on s. ” W e w i l l no t r ej e c t c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i nat i o ns 11
u n l ess t h ey are “ u n sup p ort ed by t h e rec ord an d are based on p u re s pecu l ati on or c onj ect u re. ” “A s w e ha ve previ ou sl y m ad e em ph ati cal l y cl ear, w e w i l l not 12
r e vi e w de c i s i o ns t ur ni ng pur el y o n t he i m m i gr at i o n j udg e ’ s a s s e s s m e nt o f t he
a lie n p e tit io n e r ’ s cr e d ib ility .” 13 Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

United Nati ons Conve ntio n Ag ain st T orture a n dO therC ruel , I nhu man or Degradi ng 14 Tre atment orPuni shment , art. 3 , Dec. 1 0, 198 4, S. TreatyD oc. No. 10 0-20 , 14 65 U.N.T.S. 85, 113
. See 8C .F .R

. § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c)( 2 ). Th e a pp licab ler egu lati ond ef in es“to rtu re” a s f

ollo ws: 15 [A]ny act bywhi c h s ev er e pain or sufferin g, wheth er p hy sicalor mental, i s inte ntio nallyinflict ed on a person for such purpose s as obtaini ngfrom him or her or a thir d per son info rmatio n or aconfession , punishi nghim o r h er fo r a n act h e o r s h e o r a t h i r d p e r s o n h a s c o m m i t t e d o r i s s u s p e c t e dof having committed , or inti midati ngor coerc ing him or her or a third person, or fo r a ny reaso n base d ondiscrimin atio n of a nykin d, whensu c h p ai n or sufferin g is inflict ed byo r a t th e in stiga ti ono f orwithth e co n se nt ora cqu ie sc enceo f a pub lic of fi ci a l oro th erp er so na ctin gi na no ff ic ial capa city
. Id

. § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a)( 1 ). 8C .F .R

. § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c)( 3 ) (p rovidin gan on -e xh a u stive li sto f re lev a nt evid ence); see 16 Zh ang v. Gonzales , 4 3 2 F .3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). E fev . As h crof

t , 2 9 3 F .3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 6

–0 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); see C henv. Gonzales , 47 0 F .3d 17 113 1, 1 139(5th Cir. 2 006) (explai nin g that CATclaims differ from asylum clai ms bec ausea 6 B . C A T F ram ew ork A rt i cl e 3 of

t h e C A T provi des: 1. N o St at e Par t y s hal l e xp e l , r e t ur n ( “ r e f o ul e r ” ) o r e xt r ad i t e a p e rs o n t o an ot h er Stat e w h ere t h ere are sub st an t i al groun ds f or bel i evi n g t h at he w ou l d be i n dan ger of bei n g sub j ect ed to t ort u re. 2. F or t h e pu rpose of deter m i n i n g w h et h er t h ere are such groun ds, t he c o m pe t e nt aut ho r i t i e s s hal l t ak e i nt o ac c o unt al l re l e va nt c o ns i de r at i o ns i nc l udi ng, w he r e a ppl i c ab l e , t he e xi s t e nc e i n t he S t ate c on cern ed of

a consi st en t patt ern of gross , f

l agran t or m ass vi ol ati on s of

hu m an ri gh t s. 14 U n der t h e C A T , A sres ha d the bu rden of provi n g t h at i f

h e w ere r em oved t o Er i t r e a, it is m ore l i ke l y t han no t t hathe w o ul d b e t o r t ur e d b y, o r w i t h t he
c o n s e n t o r a c q u ie s c e n c e o f, p u b lic o ffic ia ls

. T h is d e te r m in a tio n is o n e o f fa c t in 15
w h i ch the IJ m u st consi der “ al l evi den ce r e lev a n t t o t h e possi bi l i t y of f u rt h er t o r t ur e . ” Addi t i o nal l y, a CA T c l ai m i s “ s e pa rat e fr om t he c l ai m s f o r a s yl um 16
a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l a n d s h o u ld re c e iv e s e p a r a te a n a ly tic a l a tt e n tio n .” 17 Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

CAT clai m (1) nee d n ot be based on on e of the five asylum gro und s, (2) must provetorture , no t simplyper secuti on (or awell -foun ded fe ar of pe rsecution), an d (3) m us tp r ov e likeliho od o f to rtu reb y“ mo relik elyth a nn ot ,”a h igh er st a n dard th a n “we ll -f ou n de d fe a r”); E

fe , 29 3 F .3d at 906(requiring

th at a pe titio ner’ s successful withh oldi ng of remov al clai m show that it was “‘more likely tha n not’th at his life or freedo m would be thre aten ed by persecution on acco unt of o n e of th e fiv e cate gorie s m enti on edu n de r a sylu m”( qu otin g8C .F .R

. § 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 ))

. See, e.g. , Mansou r v. INS, 2 3 0F .3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 8( 7 thC ir

. 2 0 0 0). 18 7 B ecau se each di f

ferent t yp e of

cl ai m f

or r el i ef

h a s d i f

ferent s t atutor y
r equi r em ent s, a pe t i t i oner ’ s ar gum ent s i n favorof C A T re l i ef

m i ght not be fa c tu a lly re la te d to h is a s s e r te d g r o u n d s fo r re lie f u n d e r a n o th e r cla im

. F o r th is reason, an adv erse credi bi l i t y d e te rm inati on i n t h e asyl u m context need not
n e c e s s a r ily a ffe c t t h e d is p o s itio n o f a p e tit io n e r ’ s C A T cla im

. 18 C . A ppl i cat i on of t he I J’ s A dver s e Credi bi l i t y D et er m i nat i on A sres contends that he desert ed the E ri tre a n m il i t ary an d that, as a de s e r t e r , t he g o ve r nm e nt o f Er i t r e a w o ul d t o r t ur e hi m . H e t he o r i z e s t hatt he B IAan d the IJ reached t h ei r c on t rary concl u si on s by i m perm i ssi bl y rel yi n g on th e IJ ’ s a d v e r s e cr e d ib il i t y d e te r m in a tio n , w h ic h A s r e s a s s e r ts w a s a p p lic a b le
on l y t o hi s asyl u m an d w i t h h ol di n g of rem oval clai m s (based on p ast persecuti on ) , not hi s c l ai m ed d esert er s t atus on w h i ch h i s C A T cl ai m w as based ( f or probabil i t y of

f u t u re t ort u re)

. E ven t h ou gh A sres cha l l en ges t h e i n f l u en ce t h at t h e adv erse credi bi l i t y determ i n ati on ha d on hi s C A T cl ai m , he d oes not
a ctu a l l y ch a l l en ge tha t de term i n a ti on . O u r i n q u i ry be gin s — an d en d s — w i th t h e di sposi t i ve qu est i on w h et h er s u bstanti al evi den ce s u pp ort s t h e con clu sion t h at A sres fai l ed t o est abli sh t h at h e desert ed the E ri t rean m i l i t ary. ( O f course, i f t h ere w ere e v id e n ce t h at A sres di d n ot desert bu t t h at E ri t rea nev ert h el ess
w o u ld co n s id e r h im a d e s e r te r , th a t w o u ld a lte r o u r a n a ly s is .) Bot h t he Se ve nt h a nd Ni nt h Ci r c ui t s ha ve r e m an ded CA T c l ai m s t o t he B IAw h en i t rel i ed on pri or c redi bi l i ty d e term i n ati on s t h at w ere unr e l at e d or Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

See Kamalt has v. I

NS , 2 5 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 9( 9 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); Mansou r , 23 0 F .3d 9 02. 19 230F .3d at 9 08. 20 Id

. 21 I d

. at 905–06 , 90 9. 22 Id

. at90 9. 23 2 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4
. 24 Id

. at12 80. 25 Id

. 26 8 i ns ignif i c ant t o t h e CAT c l a i m s . I n Man so ur , t h e Sev en t h C i rcui t rem an ded 19
a ca s e to th e B IA fo r fu r th e r p r o c e e d in g s b e c a u s e th e co u r t w a s “n o t c o m fo r ta b le
w i t h al l ow i n g a n egati ve credi bi l i t y determ i n ati on i n t h e asyl u m context t o w ash
ov er th e tortu re claim ; esp eciall y w h en the p r io r a d ve rse cre d i b i l i ty det er m i nat i on i s not nec es sa r i l y si gni f i c ant ” t o t he C A T cl ai m . As an A ss yr i an 20 Chri s t i an, t he pe t i t i o ne r i n Man sour b a s e d h is C A T cla im o n Ir a q ’ s a b u s e s o f h is et h n i c and rel i gi ou s group, as docum en t ed by t h e State D epa rt m en t ’ s C ou n t ry R ep ort on H u m a n R i gh ts P ra cti ces ( “C ou n try R ep ort”) for Iraq

. In co n tr a st, 21 th a t p e tit io n e r ’ s a s y l u m c l a i m w a s “n o t c e n te r e [e d ] . .

. a r o u n d h is
e th n ic /re lig io u s b a c k g r o u n d ”; it in s te a d re la te d to a lle g e d p a s t a b u s e s a n d h is
s ta tu s a s a m ilita r y d e s e r te r . B e c a u s e th e tw o cla im s “d iffe r [e d ] e n o u g h in 22
n ature, ” each w arran t ed i n di vi du al t reat m en t an d the credi bi l i t y determ i n ati on i n t h e a s y l u m c o n t e x t c o u l d n o t b e r e l i e d o n t o d e fe a t t h e C A T c l a i m. 23 Li ke t he Se ve nt h C i rcui t b e f o r e i t , t he N i nt h Ci r c ui t i n K am al t has
rem an ded a peti t i on er’ s ana l yti cal l y i n dep en den t C A T cl ai m t o t h e B IAf or f urt her pr oc ee di ngs. I n t hat c as e, t he SriL a n kan pet i t i onerc l ai m ed t hat as 24
a Tam i l m al e , he w o ul d be t o r t ur e d i n vi o l at i o n o f t he CA T o n hi s r e pa t r i at i o n. 25 Th e BIA pre vi ous l y had r ej ec t ed t he pet i t i oner ’ s as yl um cl ai m , det er m i ni ng t hat h i s acc ou n tof

pa s tpe r sec u t i on l acked cr edi bi l i t y. Th e K am al t has court rej ect ed 26 Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

Id

. at12 84. 27 Id

. 28 2 9 3 F .3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 29 Id

. at90 7–0 8. 30 Id

. at90 1. 31 Id

. at90 2. 32 Id

. at 9 0 7( em ph a si s a dd ed). 33 9 t he BI A’ s o ver r e l i anc e o n i t s pr i o r a dv e r s e c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i nat i o n a nd
c a u t i o n e d t h a t t h e f

i n d i n g w a s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d e t e r mi n a t i v e o f t h e C A T c l a i m. 27 In vacatin g a n d r em an di n g t o t h e B IAf or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs, t h e court
r ec ogni ze d ev i denc e t hat c or r obo r a t ed t he pet i t i oner ’ s c l ai m of t he w i des pre ad t ort u re of

T am i l m al es. 28 I n Efe v

. A sh cr o ft , w e de s c r i be d Man sour and K am al t has a s d e c is io n s in
w hi c h t he co ur t s “ r e m and e d c as e s fo r f ur t he r c o ns i de r at i o n o f CA T c l ai m s due t o overrel i an ce on an ad verse c redi bi l i t y rul i n g. ” Y et , i n our Ef e d e c i s i o n , we 29 h eld th a t Man sour and K am al t has w ere in a p p l i ca b l e w h en the “cred i b i l i ty
assessm en t
. . . goes di rect l y t o t h e i ssue” of t ort u re velnon . Th e Ef e peti t i on er 30
con t ended t hat t he N i ger i an gov er nm ent w oul d t or t ure hi m be c ause he had ki l l ed a pol i c e o f

f i c er duri ng a pol i t i c al dem ons t r at i on. Th e I J det er m i ned t hat 31 th e p e tit io n e r la c k e d cr e d ib ility a b o u t, in tera lia , hi s c l ai m e d i nvo l ve m e nt i n t he dem on st rat i on an d w h et h er h e h ad k i l l ed t h e off i cer. In d en yi n g rel i ef un der 32 th e C A T , w e c o n cl u d ed tha t Man sour and K am al t has w er e di st i ngui shabl e a s c ases th at addr es se d c l ai m s of “ a g en er a l situ a tion of to rtu re a m o ngm en of a
c e r t ai n e t hni c o rr e l igi o us b ac kg r o und sha red by the al i en . ” Th e Ef e peti t i on er 33 Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

Id

. at90 7–0 8. 34 Id

. 35 Kamalt has v. I

NS , 2 5 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 3 ( 9 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); Mans our , 23 0 F .3d at 9 08. 36 N o r d o we a gr e e wit h A s r e s t h a t t h e I J , a n d s ub s e qu e nt ly t h e B IA , c o nfla ted h is 37 asylum and CAT clai ms. R eview o f th e IJ’ s decisionconfirms that hedid not be lieveAsres was cre dibl e, gene rall y orspecificallyas to de sertion. An d , t he BIA clearlyu ndersto od Asres’s argument, which it describ ed as a claim “that he is a deserter

. . . and for this reaso n he faces a probabilityof sufferi ngfuture torture at th e h ands of E ritre an offic ia ls in th e eve nt of his re turn .” 10 m ad e no su ch cl ai m , i n st ead al l egi n g t h at h e w ou l d be arrest ed an d t ort u red f or h i s a cts
. 34 Ef e c o n t r o ls th e in s t a n t c a s e . A s r e s ’s C A T c la im d e p e n d e d o n th e I J ’s bel i evi n g t h at A sres ha d d esert ed the E ri t rean m i l i t ary. Si m i l arl y, t h e Efe p e tit io n e r ’ s C A T cla im d e p e n d e d o n th e IJ ’ s b e lie v in g th a t th e p e tit io n e r w o u ld be t o r t ur e d f

o r a s pe c i f

i c a c t , hi s m ur de r o f a po l i c e o f

f i c e r . I n c o nt r as t , t he 35 Man sour and K

am alt h as p e t it io n e r s ’ C A T c la im s d e p e n d e d o n e a c h p e t it io n e r ’s im m u ta b le ch a r a c te r is tic s — e ith e r b e in g a n A s s y r ia n C h r is tia n o r a T a m il m a le

— w hi c h wer e no t di s put e d. 36 As i n Efe , t he I J’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hatAsr e s l ac ke d c r e di bi l i t y w as r e l e va nt t o hi s C A T cl ai m , an d t h e IJ an d the B IAdi d n ot erri n consi deri n g i t
. W h en 37 Asr e s ’ s t e s t i m o ny i s di s r e ga r ded for l ac k o f c r e di bi l i t y, t he o nl y i nde pe nde nt
e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g h is c la im s w e r e th e p h o to g r a p h s p u r p o r tin g to s h o w h im in uni f o r m . The I J de t e r m i ne d, ho w e ve r , t hati t w as “ not c l e ar ” w he t he r t he in d iv id u a l in th e p h o to g r a p h s w a s in fa c t A s r e s . T h e IJ a ls o s ta te d th a t e v e n if Asr e s w as t he i ndi vi dua l de pi c t e d i n t he pho t o s , t he y w o ul d s ho w o nl y t hathe
w a s o n c e in th e m ilita r y , n o t n e c e s s a r ily th a t h e d e s e r te d

. T h e re je c tio n o f h is
o n l y p r o f

fe r e d e v id e n c e , a lo n g w ith th e a d v e r s e cr e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n , is suff i ci en t t o den y A sres ’ s p et i t i on forrevi ew on the basi s that the evi den ce i s not
so c om pel l i n g t h at no reasonab l e fact

- f i n der coul d rule i n favor of t h e A t t orney Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

I f p r e s e n t e dw i t hdif

f e r e ntf a c t s , w em i gh td e m a n da ni n divi d u a lc r e dib il ity 38 de te rm in a ti ono nCAT -s pe cifi c is su es . SeeS in ghv . As h crof

t , 398 F.3d 39 6, 404–06(6th Cir. 200 5) (r equirin g such specificity) . B ecau se Asres’s putativeba ses for reli ef wereall inte rtwi n edsu chth a t th e I J ’scre dib ilitydet er mi n a ti onwasapp licab let o h isCATc laim , we dem and no su ch sp ecif icit y. See Alemu v. Gonzales , 40 3 F .3d 5 72, 576(8th Cir. 2 005) (“[S]epar ate analy sis is requir ed onlyw henthere is evi dencethat an ali en might b e to rture d fo r re a so n s u n re late d toh erc laim s f ora sylu m a n d withh ol di n go f re mov a l. ”)

. Providin g differe nt info rmatio n thanAmnestyInte rnation al, the Co untry Re port for 39 Eritreastat es th at allmen between 18and 4 5 years old and women betwee n 18 and 27 ye ars old must “participate in the nation al service program, which inc lude d military trai nin g and civili an work programs. Some citi zen s repo rted enlistmentinth e n atio nalservice for ma ny ye ars with no prospectiveen d date.” Both report s arepart of the recor d onapp eal

. 11 G ener al

. A nd, beca use A sr es fai l ed t o e st abl i sh t hat he de se r t ed t he E r i t r ean

38
m i l i t ary, w e do not reach t h e qu est i on w h et h er E ri t rean of f i ci al s w ou l d tor t u re a d e s e r te r fo llo w in g h is re p a tr ia tio n . W e p a u s e b r ie fly , h o w e v e r , to e n te r ta in A sr e s’s cla im th a t h is a g e a lon e — 3 4 y e a rs old — en titles h im to r e li e f. A c c or di ng t o t he A m nes t y I nt er nat i onalR epo r t on Eri t rea for 2005, “[n ]a tio n a l s e r v ic e , c o m p u ls o r y fo r a ll m e n a n d w o m e n a g e d b e tw e e n 1 8 a n d 4 0 [,]
c ont i nued t o b e e xt ended i ndef i ni t el y. ” I n t he A t t or ney G ener al ’ s vi ew , t he 18-

39 t o- 40-year r an ge consti t u t es 22 years of el i gi bi l i t y, n ot m an da t ory ser vi ce. A sres
w o u ld h a v e u s (1 ) h o ld t h a t a n y E r itr e a n b e tw e e n t h e a g e s o f 1 8 a n d 4 0 w h o is
n ot currentl y servi n g i n t h e m i l i t ary i s el i gi bl e f or r el i ef un de r th e C A T as a de s e r t e r ( as s um i ng t hatE r i t r e a i n fac t t o r t ur e s i t s des e r t e r s ) , a nd ( 2) i gno r e a ny po s s i bi l i t y f

o r e xc e pt i o ns t o t he r ul e o f 2 2 c o ns e c ut i ve y e ar s o f s e r vi c e , s o m e t hi ng th a t is a t b e s t u n lik e ly , o r in th e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l’ s w o r d s , “a b s u r d , fo r it w o u ld
m ean t h at [ t h e] m ajor ity of t h e abl e- bod i ed p ersons an d alm ost al l w om en of chi l db eari n g age w ou l d be servi n g i n t h e m i l i t ary. ” In h i s bri ef i n g t o us, A sres appear s t o r ec ogni ze t hat “ n ot e ve ry E r i t r ean m an fal l i ng i n t hat age r ange presentl y serves i n t h e m i l i t ary. ” Y et , he contend s th a t h is age n evert h el ess pro ves h i s c as e. G i ven o ur de fer ent i als t andard o f r evi ew — s ubst ant i al
e v i d e n c e — A s r e s ’ s a r g u me n t o n t h i s p o i n t i s u n p e r s ua s i v e . On c e we Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 08- 60130

12 ac kno w l e dg e t hata t l e as t s o m e Er i t rean s i n Asr e s ’ s a ge g r o up a r e no t i n t he
m i l i t ar y and di d no t de s e r t , w i t ho ut a ddi t i o nale vi de nc e f r o m Asr e s , w e c o nc l ude th a t th e e v id e n c e d o e s n o t c o m p e l h o ld in g t h a t a n y re a s o n a b le fa c t-f in d e r w o u ld h a v e ru le d in h is fa v o r o n th e b a s is o f h is a g e . I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e d e n y A s r e s ’s p e t it io n fo r r e v ie w b e c a u s e th e I J ’s a n d th e B I A ’s deci si on s are sup ported by sub st an t i al evi den ce. P ET I T I ON D ENI ED

. Case: 08-60130 Document: 00511023342 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/09/2010