The Honor able Solomon Oliver, Jr., United St ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0715n.06 F iled: Novem ber 20, 2008 No. 07-3581 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

MOHAMED AN TAR ,

Petitioner-Appellant ,
v.

MICHA EL M U K

A SE Y , A TTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U NI TED STA TES,

Respondent-

Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE BO AR D OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS O P I N I O N

BEFORE: CLAY and COOK, Cir cuit Judges; and OLIVER, District Judge. * SOL OMON OLIVER, JR., DistrictJudge. Petitioner/Appellant Mohamed Anta r (“A ntar” ) appe als the final order of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appeals (“ BI A”) , which af firmed the I mmigration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) denial of Antar’s application for asylum and the withholding of remova l under 8 U .S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1) and 1231(b)(3), respec tively , and for protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) , 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c) , 1208.18. For the following re as o ns, the court AFF I RMS t he B I A’s orde r. I. BACKG ROUND A. He ar ing Be for e th e IJand t he IJ ’s Subse que nt Rul ing2

1. Antar’ s Testimony Antar w as born on Nove mber 4, 1974, in F ree town, Sierra L eone. ( J.A. at 97.) Antar state d that he is not a citizen of Si er ra L eo n e bec ause w hites cannot obtain c itiz enship. ( Id. ) Antar

e xpla ine d th a t his pa re nts a re L e ba ne se , but he is not a L e ba

ne se c iti zen be c a

us e he wa s n ot b or

n in that country . (

Id. ) Antar testified that his mother died when he was eig ht y ear s old. ( Id. ) Antar

has three sisters and one br other, a ll of whom depar ted from Sierr a L eone to the U nited States in the

ear l y 1990s due to the civil war . ( Id. at 98.) Anta

r, the y oung est child, rema ined in Sierra L eone with his father. (

Id. ) Antar te stified that, while he a nd his fathe r were at a mi ning site, the y wer e ca ptured in 1994 in a n a tt a c k b y Re v o lu ti o n a r

y U n it e d F r o n t ( “ RU F ” ) re bels. ( Id. ) The r ebels wounde d and killed some people, a

nd those who we re not killed we re c apture d and sepa rate d into two g roups of y oung and old individuals. (

Id. ) Antar state d that he wa s separ ated f rom his father

at this tim e and ne ver saw him ag ain. (

Id. ) An tar t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s ta ke n to a re be l c a mp c a lle d Z imi , wh e re he wa s h e ld a g a ins t hi s will, be aten, starved, and sexually abused. (

Id. ) An tar te sti fi e d tha t he wa s use d as a hum a n s hie ld by the re bels as they

attacke d v i l l age s , shot and ca ptured villag ers, r aped w omen, burne d down houses, and s t o l e fo od. ( Id. ) Antar

rec ounted other atrocities per petra ted by

the re bels, including the killings of Antar’ s aunt and c ousin, a villag e chie f, and a fema le soldier. (

Id. ) Antar

testified that he e ve ntu a lly

su c c e e de d in esc a

pin g fr om Z imi in 199 8, wh e n his ca pto rs a ssi g ne d him t o a ssi st w ith

car ry ing guns and ammunition to Kono. ( Id. ) I n Kono, the Nig eria n army attacke d the re bels, and Antar escape d during the ensuing battl e and walked approxim ately six teen mil es t o Koindu, which border s Guinea. (

Id. )3

Antar c laimed that individuals he met in K oindu pr ovided him with a canoe to cross the rive r to Far anah, G uinea, whe re he esca ped with only

the clothes on his ba ck. ( Id. ) I n Fa

rana h, Antar

rec eived assistance from L ebane se citi zens and escape d to Conakry , Guinea. ( Id. ) W h i l e i n C o n a kr

y, Antar me t a L ebane se m an name d Mohamed F awa se, who kne w Antar ’s brother -in-law’ s father and helped him contac t his brother-in-la w i n the United States. (

Id. ) With Fawa se’s he lp, Antar obtaine d two Canadian visas a

nd trave led from Conakr

y to Montreal. (

Id. ) An tar e nte re d M on tr e a l on July 5, 1999, and then went to Toronto and Windsor. ( Id. ) Antar

stated that a f

riend in Windsor, Acram Hamkar , drove him ac ross the Canadia n border to Detroit, Michig an. (

Id. ) An tar s ub mit te d a n a sylu m app li cat io n on May 26 , 2 00 0, c la imi ng he wa s u nw ill ingto

re tur n to Sie rr a

L e on e be c a

us e he ha d n o fa

mil y the re a nd

wa s a fr a id o f R

UF re be ls t

ha t a lle g e dly walk fre ely throug hout the country . ( Id. a t 10 1. ) A nta

r t e sti fi e d th a t he ha s su ff

e re d h e a lthpr ob le ms since c oming to the United States, inc luding stre ss, nightmar es, inability to sleep, lac k of

conce ntration, and diff

iculty socializing. (

Id. ) 2. Te sti mon y

of Othe rs on

An tar’ s B e ha lf First, Ray

Kamoo, Ph.D., a lice nsed psy cholog ist, testified as an expert witness re g arding Antar’ s psy cholog ical hea lth. ( Id. at 104.) Dr

. Kamoo diagnose d Antar w ith major depre ssion and po st- tr a umatic str e ss d iso rd e r a s a re su lt o f t

he tr a uma he e xpe ri e nc e d w hil e a

pr iso ne r o f r e be ls i n Afric a. ( Id. ) Second, Antar ’s brother -in-law, B ass am Ay oub, also testified on Antar ’s beha lf. Ba ssam depar ted t o the Unit ed S tates from Sierra L eone in 1991 due to the civil war . ( Id. at 104.) B assam was late r g rante d asy lum in the United States and obtained pe rmane nt residenc y . ( I d. ) Bassam indicated that he rec eived a call from F awa se in Fe bruar y or Mar ch of 1999, w ho informed him that4

Antar ha d been c apture d by rebe ls, subsequently esca ped, and now needed help c oming to the United States. ( Id. ) B assam later

rec eived a

call in J uly 1999 from Antar, who was in De troit. ( Id. ) B assam then drove from Minnesota to De troit to pick up Antar on Jul y 9, 1999. (

Id. ) Ba ssam stated that he contac ted an attorney on Antar’ s behalf t h e s ec o n d d ay af t er Ant ar

arr ived in the United States. ( Id. at 1 0 5

. ) B as s am s t at ed t h att h e a t t o rn ey re qu i re d An t ar t o b ri n g a passport, bi rth cer

tificate, and identification. ( Id. ) Acc ording to B assam, since Anta r did not have his birth certifica

te, B assam conta cted his step-br other in Sierra L eone to obtain it. (

Id. ) B assam te sti fi e d th a t hi s f

a the r, wh o li ve d in Sie rr a L e on e , bro ug ht An tar’ s bir th ce rt if ic a te wi th h im w hil e he wa s visiti ng the United States. ( Id. ) B assam testified that his father did not provide a statement reg arding his role in obtaining A ntar’s birth c ertificate beca use his fathe r wa s rec overing from hea rt surg ery and also “ did not want to ge t involved” in immigra tion procee dings. ( Id. ) Finally , Antar’ s sister, Nohad Ayoub, testified on Antar ’s beha lf. ( Id. at 106.) Af

ter a rriving in the United States fro m S i err a L eone in 1992, Noha d was g rante d asy lum and later obta ined citizenship. (

Id. ) N o h a d

k e p ti n t o u c h w i t h A n t a r u n t i l 1 9 9 4 , w h e n s h e w a s t o l d b y J o h n M ’ b a yo (“M’ bay o”), a

family friend, tha t Antar a

nd her f ather wer e likely

dead beca

use bot h had disappe are d, and their bodies could not be found. ( Id. at 107.) Nohad claimed she next hea rd from her br other in late Fe bruar

y or ea rly Marc h 1999 and then saw him when he arr ived in Detroit on Jul y 12, 1999. ( Id. ) Noha d noted that Antar exhibi ted unusual beha

vior that included de pression, inability to sleep, and nightmar es, and that Antar soug ht counseling to relieve his sy mptoms. (

Id. ) Nohad insist ed that Antar w ould be killed if he re turned to Sierra L eone, and that he had no fa mily in that country . (

Id. ) 3. I J ’s Ruling

a. Cre dib ili ty5

T h e I J fo u n d t h at Antar la cked c redibility due to three fac tors. (

Id. a t1 1 0

. ) F i r s t , t h e IJ state d th a t A nta

r prov ide d in c on sis te nt t e sti mony re g a rd ingho w a

nd wh e n h e ob ta ine d h is b ir th

cer tificate a nd passport. Specifica lly , the I J noted that Antar claimed at his ini tial hear ing tha t he had only o n e b ir th c e rti f ic a te , w h ic h w a s a tt a c h e d to h is Si e r

r a L e o n e a n p a s s p o rt a

n d d is c o v e r e d

by M’bay o in the toilet of Antar’s burne d-down house. ( Id. a t 11 0. ) A nta

r d id n ot p ro du c e thi s b ir

th

cer tificate at his initial hear ing be cause he cla imed he lef t it at home and, despite promising that he would bring it to his subsequent hearing , he failed to do so and claimed he los t it. ( Id. at 110.) At the continued he aring , Antar a lso test i fi ed , co n trary to his earlier

testimony , that he had a

second birth cer tificate issued in 1999, whic h was de livered to him by his brother-in- law’s f

ather , that Antar

a tta c he d to his TPS a

pp lic a tio n. Ho we ve r, hi s bro th e r- in- law’ s f a the r d id n ot o ff

e r a state me nt t o

corr oborate Antar’ s claim. ( Id. a t 11 1. ) A dd iti on a lly , A nta r i nd ic a te d th a t he le ft

Sie rr a L e on e wi th only the clothes on his bac k and later rec eived his Sierra

L eonea n passport in Augus t 2 0 00 when M’bay o discovere d it in An t ar ’s burne d-down house. ( Id. ) H ow e ve r, An tar s ub mit te d a TPS

a pp lic a tio n o n Jun e 23 , 2 00 0, to w hic h h e a tta c he d a c op y of his Sie rr a L e on e a n p a ssp or

t. An tar a lso submitt ed a c opy

of this passport with his asy lum application on May 26, 2000. (

Id. ) S e c o n d , t h e IJ f

o u n d t h a t A n t a r

w a s n o tc r e d i b l e b e c a

u s e A n t a r ’ s a s s e rt i o n t h a tM ’ b a yo retrie ved Antar’ s passport, birth cer tificate, and family photogr aphs from the t o i l et was “incr edulous.” (

Id. ) The I J noted that M’bay o purportedly provided a fa x ed letter attesting that he sent Antar his birth ce rtificate and passport, but the I J stated that the a uthenticity

of the letter

was not proven. ( Id. ) M or e ov e r, the I J con c lud e d th a t, e ve n if the le tte r wa s wha t it pu rp or te d to be , it

did

n o tc o r r o b o r a t e A n t a r ’ s t e s t i m o n y b e c a u s e i to m i t t e d

i m p o r t a n td e t a i l s r e g a r d i n g w h e r e M ’ b a yo purportedly

found the doc uments and how he knew whe re to sea rch f or them. (

Id. at 111-12.)6

Finally , the I J found that Antar was not c redible beca use he failed to pr ovide cor roborating evi d en ce t o s u p port his claim that he wa s capture d by rebe ls. (

Id. at 112.) The I J noted that M’bay o’s letter simpl y stated t hat Antar was “ captur ed by rebe ls” but did not go into any detail about Antar’ s claim. (

Id. ) More over, A ntar did not provide a ny statements or testimony

from F awa se, who purp or te dly too k c a re of

An tar a ft e r he e sc a

pe d f ro m Sie rr a

L e on e , h e lpe d h im c on ta c t hi s f a mil y in the United States, and obta ined a Guine an passpor t and Canadia

n visa for him. (

Id. ) A nta r al so did

no t pr ov ide state me nts or te sti mon y fr om Hamka , who a lle g e dly dr ov e him fr om Ca na da to D e tr oit

. ( Id. ) There fore , based on the t hree fac tors cited above, t he I J conclude d that, “[s] uccintly stated, the documentation and testi mony responde nt presente d fails to prove w ho he is or the oc curr ence of the eve nts he descr ibes. Henc e, his applica tion must be denie d.” ( Id. ) b. Me rit

s i. Past P erse cution The I J conclude d that, even if Antar was cre dible, what Antar de scribed doe s not rise to the level of pa st perse cution beca use “the fac t that [he] alleg edly g ot caug ht up in the violence a ssociated with this conf

lict does not establish perse cution.” ( Id. a t 11 3. ) T he I J sta te d, in a na ly zinga c la im of per secution in the conte x t of a c ivil war, that he must examine the motivatio n o f t h e group threa tening the har

m. ( Id. at 113.) The I J conclude d that Antar was not pe rsec u t ed b y t he g ov e rn me nt o f Sie rr a L e on e on a c c ou nt of on e of the fi ve pr ote c te d g ro un ds c on ta ine d in 8 C. F .R. § 1208.13(b)( 1). The I J stated t hat Antar produce d no evidenc e that the a lleg ed har m he suffe red w as mot ivate d b y

a n a c tua l or

imp ute d p oli tic a l g ro un d, a nd his te sti mony

ma de no re fe rence to his po lit ic a l op ini on

or oth e r p ro te c te d g ro un d, bu t me re ly state d h e was on e of

the re be ls’ fe w w hit e7

prisoners. (

Id. ) ii. Change d Country Conditi ons The I J conclude d that, even if Antar w as cr edible and c ould establish past perse cution, chang ed conditions in Sierra L eone r ebut the pre sumption of a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rs e c uti on . ( J.A. a t 11 3 ( c it in g 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8. 13 (b )( 1) ). Spe c if ic a lly , A nta

r’ s a sylum

c la im i s premised upon persec ution by RUF re bels, but the 2004 State Depa rtment Country

Report states that the civil conflict in Sierra L eo n e off icially ended in 2002. (

Id. at 115.) Additionally , the 2004 Country Report s tates t hat t here wer e no repor ts of pol itically motivated disappea ranc es or polit ical prisoners. (

Id. ) Ther efor e, the I J conclude d that these c hang es do not support Antar’ s position t hat he has a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution if he returne d to Sier ra L eone. (

Id. ) Simil arly , the I J found that the re cord e vid en ce is also insufficient to prove A ntar’s c laim for prote ction under the CAT, wh ic h is ba se d o n th e sa me fa c ts a s h is w ith ho ldi ng c la im. c. Re moval to Sierra Leone or, in the Alternative , to Lebanon The I J order ed Antar r emoved to Sierra L eone or , in the alternative, to L ebanon. ( Id. at 116.) B. F ina l Or de r of t he BIA 1. Du e Pr oc e ss C la im The B I A first re

jected A ntar’s c laim that the I J abandone d his role as a n impartial arbiter of fa cts and a ssumed the role of prosec utor, findin g t h at Antar f ailed to demonstrate that the I J ’s actions deprive d him of a full and fair hear ing. (J.A. at 6.) The BI A, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2 (b), noted that an I J may

rec eive e vidence, i n t er ro gate, ex amine, and c ross-examine the alien or witnesses. (J.A. at 6.) More over, the BI A noted that “the I J fully advised [Antar] of his proce dural

a nd su bs tanti ve ri g hts du ri ng the pr oc e e din g s, a nd he a de qu a te ly inq uir e d in to t

he pe rt ine nt d e ta ils8

for the respondent’ s claim for relief from re moval.” (

Id. ) Ac cording ly , the B I A conc luded that the I J’s a c tio ns did

no t pr e jud ic e the ou tc ome of the he a ri ng , a nd An tar the re fo re fa ile d to de mon str a te t h at t h e IJ d ep ri v ed h i m o f a fu l l an d fa i r h ea ri n g. 2. Cr e dib ili ty The B I A adopted a

nd aff irmed t he I J ’s findi ng that Antar failed to provide c redible te stimony and evide nce in support of his claim. (

Id. ) S pecif

ically , the B I A found that the I J ’s dec ision

acc urate ly set forth the fac ts asser ted by Antar in support of hi s claim for r elief f rom remova l. (

Id. ) Mo re ov e r, the B I A d e te rm ine d that th e I J’s f ind ing s o f f

a c t ha ve no t be e n s ho wn

to b e c le a rl y

err oneous bec ause: I n rea ching this c onclusion, the I J found various discrepa ncies which wer e dee med to adver sely

impact the re spondent’s cr ed i b ility including inc onsistent testim ony re g a rd ingthe nu mbe r a

nd mann e r i n w hic h h e ob ta ine d h is b ir th c e rt if ic a te s, compare Tr

. a t 13 5 v s. Tr . a t 19 3- 96 ; c on fu sio n s ur ro un din g his va

ri ou s p a ssp or

ts a nd the da te s and

mann e r i n w hic h h e ob ta ine d th e m; t he la c k of pla us ibi lity wi th respe ct to the manner

in which his friend r etrieve d his passport, birth cer tificate, a nd ph oto g ra ph s, a lle g e dly

fr om a toi le t in a ho us e burn e d to the g ro un d b y the re be ls, see. e .g. Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004), citing Matter of MD-, 21 I & N D e c . 1 18 0, 11 82 (B I A 1998) , a s w e ll a s h is f a ilure to p re se nt c re dib le corroborative e vidence of his captur e or a statement fr om the individual who purportedly

assisted him upon his escape from th e re b els and in his flig ht to the Un ite d St a te s. We f

ur th er not e a nd

a g re e that th e re sp on de nt f a ile d to a de qu a te ly e s t a b l i s h h i s i d e n t i t y. ( Id. ) 3. Me ri ts a. Past Persec ution The BI A rejected the I J ’s alternative finding t hat, even if Antar was credible, Antar failed to showpast perse cution. ( Id. ) Specific ally , the B I A conc luded it could not affir m the I J ’s alter

native fin d i n g t h at An t ar

co u l d n o tes t ab l i s h p as tp er s ec u t i o n b ec au s e, i f c re d i b l e, An t ar ’s asylum application9

s h o w s t h a tt h e r e b e l s i m p u t e d A n t a r ’ s s u

p p o rt f o r t h e g o v e r

n m e n t f r o m h i s L e b a n e s e e t h n i c i t y. ( Id. ) b. Changed Country Conditi ons Howeve r, t he BI A adopted and affirmed the I J ’s conc lusion that, even if Antar ’s claims we re

cre dible, Antar f

ailed to r ebut the bac kg round evide nce indicating ther e have been sig nificant c hang es in Sierra L eone, inc luding the e nd of t he civil war in 2002, which “a dequate ly rebuts Antar ’s asser

ted fea r of r eturn a

rising f rom that confla g ration.” ( Id. ) The B I A noted that Antar ’s ar g uments on appea l reiter ated his asse rtions reg arding his captur e and mistreatment at the hands of the RUF re bels, but they “fa il to provide any

persua sive basis to disturb the I J ’s dec ision.” ( Id. ) 4. Removal to Sierra L eone or , in the Alterna tive, to L ebanon The B I A found that the I J did not err in orde ring Antar r emoved to Sierra L eone or , in the alternative, to L ebanon. ( Id. ) II . STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW

The c ourt revie ws the B I A’s finding s of fa ct, including whether an alien qua lifies for r elief a nd protec tion from remova l, under the substantial e vidence standard. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U. S. 47 8, 48 1 ( 19 92 ); Marku v . Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004). Under this defer ential standard, a dminist rative f indings of f

act “ are conclusive unle ss any rea sonable a djudicator would be

c omp e lle d to c on c lud e to t he c on tr a ry .” 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); see also Mark u, 380 F.3d at 986. Th e c ou rt re vie ws de novo alleg ed due pr ocess violations in removal pr ocee dings. Va sh a v . G on za le s, 410 F.3d 863, 872 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). III . LA W A ND AN AL YSI S A. Due P r oc e ss10

Antar arg ues he was not aff orded due proce ss beca

use “the I J is biased and ha [d] his mind already made up a bout the case prior to taking any testimony from [ Antar].” (Pet’r Br . at 52.) F or example, Antar a rg ues that the I J shows he is n o t i m partial be cause : (1) the I J prese nted the following hy pothetical to D r. Kamoo: “L et us suppose that [Antar] is from L ebanon or Guinea and n o t from Sierra L eone a

nd now knows that he is g oing to be deported t o Sierra L eone, a country which he ha s

n e v e r b e e n to , w o u ld

n ’ t th a t c a

u s e h is me n ta l s y

mp to ms ?”; ( 2 ) th e I J s h o w e d n o r e mo r s e for the petitioner’s story

or suffe ring and tried to a ccuse the petitioner of play ing a role in the killing of

other people whe n he wa s alleg edly used as a human shield by

the re bels; (3) the I J tried to ac cuse A ntar of g iving f

alse testimony

with respec t to the p as s p ort and birth ce rtificate and fa iled to let Antar

e xpla in him se lf

; and (4 ) af

te r t he I J soug ht t

he a ssi sta nc e of the F or e ns ic Do c ume nt L a b ( “ F DL ” ) t o evaluate t he authe nticity

of Antar ’s birth ce rtificate at the Jul y 14, 2005 hear ing, the I J schedule d a hear ing on O ctober

19, 2005, announcingthat he would issue his decision on that date . Howeve r, the I J denied Anta

r’s motion for a continuance of t he October 19, 2005 hearing pe nd ingthe F DL re su lts , statin g that “ the re is n o a ssu ra nc e the F DL

wi ll e ve r p ro du c e a pro bat iv e re po rt ,” a nd ult imate ly issued his decision on September 30, 2005. ( Id. ) Con ve rs e ly , the g ov e rn me nt a rgue s that: (1 ) no thi ng in t he tr a ns c ri pt o f t

he he a ri ng su g g e sts any bias by the I J ; (2) Antar ’s alleg ation of b i as am o u nts to mere spec ulation; and (3) the I J ’s

re c og nit ion

of sig nif ic a nt inc on sis te nc ie s in A nta r’ s te sti mon y

a nd An tar’ s f a ilure to e ith e r r e c on c ile the se inc on sis te nc ie s o r i ntr od uc e oth e r e vid e nc e in s up po rt of his c la ims do e s n ot c on sti tut e bia s. Although there is no constitutional rig ht to asy lum, a liens fac ing remova l a re enti t l ed t o d ue proce ss. Se e Zad

v y da s v . D av is , 533 U.S. 678, 693-94 (2001). This court must conduct the f ollowing tw o- ste p in qu ir

y to de te rm ine wh e the r An tar wa s dep ri ve d of his c on sti tut ion a l due pr oc e ss r ig hts :11

“first, whe ther ther e w as a d ef ec t in the remova l proce eding ; and sec ond, whether the alien wa s prejudice d beca

use of it.” Vasha , 410 F.3d at 872. 1

. De fe ct i n t h e R em o v al P ro ce ed i n gs I t is well-settled that “[a]n I J

. . . s h al l administer oaths, pre sent and re ceive evidenc e, int e rr og a te , e xami ne , a

nd c ro ss- e xami ne the a lie n or wi tne sse s. ” 8 U. S.C. § 12 52 (b ). Ho we ve r, thi s

c ourt ha s r e c og nize d th a t: Thoug h “[t] he I J is affor ded broa d discretion to control the ma nner of interrog ation in or der to a scer

tain the truth,” Mikhailev itch , [146 F.3d 384 , 391 (6th Cir. 1998)] (interna l quotation omit ted), we have r ecog nized that “[a] neutra l judge is one of the most basic due proc ess protec tions.” Re y es- Me le nd e z v . I NS , 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9 th C ir . 2 00 3) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n o mit te d) ; se e als o Ahmed v . Gonzales , 398 F.3d 722, 725 (6th Cir. 2005) (“I t is undisputed that petitioners i n such proceeding s are entitled to an unbiased a

rbiter who ha s not prejudg ed their c laims.”). Vasha, 410 F.3d a t 873. I n Vasha , the cour t held that the I J “cr ossed the line fr om impartial arbiter to gove rnment advoc ate” when, in re aching her decision, the I J relied on evidenc e that she obta ined from an of

f-the- rec ord conve rsation with the cour t’s cler k that was not produc ed by the par ties at the hear ing. Conversely , in Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 14 6 F .3 d a t 39 1, the c ourt re je c te d th e pe tit ion e r’ s c la im that he wa s denied due proce ss beca use t he I J alleg edly questioned hi m in an intimidating manner and preve nted him from fully

explaining instance s of past persecution that he suf fer ed in B elar

us. I nstead, the cour t found that t h e I J ’s questions “we re a ppare ntly intended to clar ify

a time fra

me and f ocus more dire ctly

upon [petit ioner’s] situation, not t o intimi date him or preve n t him from prese nting rele vant evidenc e on his own beha lf.” See a ls o Il iev v . I NS , 127 F.3d 638, 643 ( 7th Cir. 1997) (“A lt h o u g h th e [I J] ma

y h av e b e e n ‘ b r

u s qu e , ’ a n d p e r

h a p s c o u ld h a v e a c h ie v e d h is o b je c tive in a

mor e c ourt e ou s ma

nn e r, it i s dif

fi c ult to sa

y on the c old re c or d th a t hi s a

pp ro a c h w a rr a nts c ri tic ism ;12

cer tainly , he did not deny

a fa ir trial.”)

. Her e, as in Mikhailev itch , the I J ’s hy pothetical to Dr. K amoo does not constitute evidenc e of bias. Rather, the hy

pothetical appea

rs to ha ve been an attempt to clarify Dr. Ka moo’s testimony about An t ar ’s mental hea lth sy mptoms. S imilarly , as in Mikhailev itch , the I J ’s questions to Antar reg arding his testimony

with respe ct t o his role a s a human shield and how he obtained his pa ssport or birth ce rtificate s ap p ea r d esig ned to elicit re levant testimony from Antar

and re solve any inconsistencies, not to intimi date him. As in Iliev , while the I J may have be en brusque and per haps his objective could have bee n achie ved in a more courte ous manner, i t does not constitute a def ect in the remova l proce eding s. Moreove r, the c ourt finds that the I J ’s dec isio n t o d en y An t ar a continuance to incorpora te the F DL results of Antar ’s birth ce rtificate does not con s t i t ute a due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n b e c a

u s e a d e c i s i o n t o g r a n ta

c o n t i n u a n c e i s c o m p l e t e l y d i s c r e t i o n a r y. 2. No Prejudice The c ourt finds that, eve n if there had bee n a def ect in the pr ocee dings tha t res u l t ed in a violation of Antar’ s due proc ess rig hts, A ntar wa s not prejudiced by any alleg ed def

ect. See V

asha, 410 F.3d at 875 (deny

ing the petition for re view bec ause, a lthough ther e wa s a def ect in the r emoval proce eding s that was “quite tr oubling” and denie d the petitioner his due proce ss rig hts, the petitioner did not alleg e, and ther e wa s no evidenc e, that he w as pre judiced by

the def ect) . Specifica lly , Antar’ s arg uments that his due proce ss r ights wer e violated all essentially rela te to the I J ’s deter

mination that Antar w as not cre dible. Yet, eve n if the I J found that Antar was cre dible, the outcome of the re moval proce eding s would remain the sa me bec ause, as discussed below, the court finds that substantial evidenc e shows that Antar did not have a w ell-founde d fea r of p ersecution in light of funda mental chang es in Sierra

L eone. Acc ording ly , since Antar would not ha ve been prejudice d even if there had13

been a def ect in the removal proc eeding , the cour t finds that Antar’s due proce ss claim does not entitle him to relief. B. Credibili ty Antar a

rg ues the B I A erred in conc luding, ba sed on minor inconsistencies, tha t Antar wa s not

cre dible beca

use Antar submitt ed si g nificant evidence in support of his application. (Pet’r Br . at 41- 51.) Converse ly , the g overnme nt arg ues that substantial evidenc e t h at go es to the hea rt of Antar ’s claims support the B I A’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. (Resp’t B r. at 21-24.) The c ourt nee d not resolve the issue of credibility beca use, as discusse d below, the c ourt aff irms the BIA’s finding that A nta r i s n ot e nti tle d to a sylum , w ith ho ldi ng of re mov a l, o r p ro te c tio n und e r t he CA T b e c a

us e Antar is unable to estab l i s h t hat he ha s a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution or likelihood of torture. C. Well-F ound ed F ear of P erse cution or Torture Antar argues that he is e ntitled to relief based upon the sever ity of his past persec ution and t h er ef o re n ee d n o t s h o w a l i k el i h o o d o f fu tu re p er s ec u t i o n . (P et ’r Br

. at 3 1 , ci t i n g Matter of Chen, 20 I &N Dec . 16 (B I A 1989)). A lternatively , Antar points to the testimony of Dr. K amoo, who opined that Antar w ill suffer a

n extreme exacer

bation of hi s mental hea lth sy mptoms i f he r eturns to Sierra L eone. ( J .A. at 104.) Antar a lso proffe red the af fi d av i t of Dr. Jeremy

Presholdt, a profe ssor of Afric an and World History at Northe astern U niversity , who had rec ently returne d from a two- wee k vis it to Sie rr a L e on e wh e re he c on du c te d o ns ite inv e sti g a tio ns in t he c a pit a l c ity of F re e tow n a

nd in the Bo, Kono and Kene ma Districts. ( Id. at 746. ) D r. Pr e sh old t st a te d th a t RUF re bels roam the country fre ely beca use they wer e gra

nted amnesty from prose cution by the g overnme nt and opined that A nta r c ou ld s uf

fe r p sy c ho log ic a l and

e c on omi c dis tr e ss if he re tur ne d to Sie rr a

L e on e a nd , if14

arme d conflict we re to re sume, possibly phy sical har

m. ( Id. at 748.) T h e g o v e r

n me n t a r g u e s th a t, a s s u mi n g th a t A n ta r is c r e d ib le a n d e v e n a s s u mi ng Antar c an demonstrate pa st persec ution, Antar must show a we ll-founded f ear of futur e p er s ec u tion or a likelihood of torture. The g overnme nt contends t hat t he I J and BI A were c orre ct in concluding that fundame ntally

change d conditions in S ierra L eone note d in the 2004 State Depa rtment Country Report, such as the absenc e of both politically motivated disappea ranc es and the captur e of political prisoners, a dequate ly

rebut Anta

r’s fe ar of future pe rsec ution. 1. Statutory

Fr amewor

k of Asy lum, W ithholding of Removal, a nd CAT The Attorne y

Gene ral may , in his discretion, g rant asy lum to an alien who demonstra tes that he is a ref ug ee within the meaning of the I mmigration Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( A). An alien qua lifies as a r efug ee if he esta blishes pas t p er s ec u t i o n or a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture perse cution in his country of or i gin on acc ount of a prote cted g round. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (42)( A); 8 C.F.R.§ 1208.13(b). I f the applicant is able to prove pa st persec ution, a presumption of future perse cution arises. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1). The g overnme nt may rebut the pr esumption of futur e pe rs e c uti on

by e sta bli sh ingby

a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that, s inc e the pa st pers ec u tion occurr ed, conditions in the applica nt’s country

have c hang ed to an e x tent that the applicant no longe r has a well-founde d fea r of being perse cuted upon return. Ou da v . I NS , 324 F.3d 4 4 5 , 4 5 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Mikhailev it ch , 146 F.3d a t 390). This court has e x plained the g overnme nt’s bu rden of proof with re spect to fundamental cha ng e in the applica

nt’s country

c on dit ion s a s f

oll ow s: The I NS must do m ore tha

n show that circ ums t an ce s i n the country have f u n d a me n ta ll y c h a n g e d ; th e I N S mu s t a ls o s h o w th a t s u c h c h a n g e n e g a te s the particula r applica nt's w ell-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution. Id. Se e als o Kras te v v . I NS ,15

292 F.3d 126 8 , 1 2 7 6 -77 (10th Cir. 2002) (B I A must conduct individualiz ed we l l -f ounded fe ar a

naly sis); Cha nd

v . I NS , 2 2 2 F

. 3 d

1 0 6 6 , 1 0 7 9 ( 9 th

Ci r . 2 000) (w he the r o r n ot a

pa rt ic ula r a pp lic a nt' s f

e a r i s r e bu tte d b y

a g e ne ra l c ha

ng e in c ountr y c on dit ion s re qu ir e s a n ind ivi du a lize d a na ly sis that fo c us e s on the sp e c if

ic harm suff

ere d and the r elationship to i t o f i n fo rmation containe d in a country re po rt ); Fergis te v . I

NS , 138 F.3d 14, 19 ( 1st Cir. 1998) (g ener al evidenc e of chang ed country conditions is insufficient to show that an applicant no longe r has a we ll-founded f

ear of per secution); C harle s Gordon et a l., Im mi gr ati on Law & Procedure § 34.02[9] [d] (Rev. ed. 2002)

. Id. at 452. Wherea s asy lum is di scre tionary , withholding of remova l under the I NA is mandatory

if an alien demonstra tes that his life or fr eedom would be threa tened in the proposed country of re moval

on acc ount of a prote cted g round. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). An a pplicant must establish a clear probability of future perse cution by demonstrating that it is “more likely than not” that he will be pe rsec uted on ac count of a protec ted g round u p o n his return to the propose d country of re moval. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 2). The standard f or withholding of

remova l is more stringe nt than the standar d for a sy lum. Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 640 ( 6th Cir. 2005). L ikewise, to be elig ible for protec tion unde r CAT, an applicant must establish that it is “more l i k el y t h an n o t ” that he w ould be tortured if returne d to the country

of re moval. See C.F.R. § 12 08 .1 6( b) ; Liti , 4 1 1 F

. 3 d a t 6 4 1

. T h e s ta n d a r d f o r r e li e f u n d e r CA T is mo r e s tr in g e n t th a n the standard f or asylum. Liti , 411 F.3d a t 641. 2. Application As discussed above , there is significa nt case law supporting the g overnme nt’s position t hat any presumpt i o n o f fu t ure pe rsec ution can be r ebutted in the fa ce of signific antly

chang ed countr

y

c on dit ion s, a nd that pa st pe rs e c uti on a lon e is no t su ff ic ie nt to su

pp or t e nti tle me nt to as y lum , withholding of r emoval, or CAT pr otection. I n Liti , 411 F.3d at 641, this court re verse d the B I A’s16

de te rm inatio n tha t the a

pp lic a nts we re no t cr e dib le wi th re sp e c t to pa st p e rs e c uti on fo r e ng a g ingin anti-communist protests in Albania. However, the Liti court a ffirme d the B I A’s orde r deny ing the

a pp lic a nts ’ c la ims fo r a sylum be c a us e Sta te De pa

rtme nt c ountr

y re po rt s in dic a te d th a t c on dit ion s in Albania ha d fu n d am en t all y chang ed to the extent that anti-communist protestors wer e no long er perse cuted, a

nd t h e ap p licants failed to r ebut the g overnme nt’s evidenc e by producing their own evidenc e that anti-communist protestors were stil l perse cuted in Albania. Since the applica nts failed to e stablish their elig ibilit y for a sy lum, the Liti court c oncluded that the a pplicants could not satisfy the more string ent standar d for withholding of remova l or relief under the CAT. Id. (c i t i n g Koliada

v . I NS , 2 59 F .3 d 4 82 , 4 89 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) ); Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F .3 d 9 41 , 9 55 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; Yu v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 700, 703 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 2004). L ike the cour

t in Liti , the I J and BI A found that any presumption of future perse cution was rebu t t ed by

the 2004 State Depa

rtment Report for

Sierra L eone, w hich stated that ther e we re no

r e p o rt s o f p o l i t i c a l l y

m o t i v a t e d

d i s a p p e a r a n c e s o r o f p o l i t i c a l p r i s o n e r s . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , w h i l e t h e IJ and B I A did not expl icitly no t e t h i s fa ct i n analy

zing the cha

ng e in conditions in Si err a L eone, the ba sis fo r b oth

An tar’ s p a st p e rs e c uti on

a nd fe a r o f fu tur e pe rs e c uti on wa s the ro le of RU F re be ls i n politically

motivated disappea

ranc es and the captur e of p o l itical prisoners. Fur ther buttressing the BI A’s holding are the 2004 State Depa rtment Report and the 2005 Human Rig hts W atch Repor t noting that the Sierra L eonea n g overnme nt pr ovided a forum for publicly airing the g rieva nces of victims and the confe ssion s o f p er p et rators f rom the civil war , and over 100,000 citizens had participa ted in this Truth a nd Reconc iliation proc ess by the time the hear ings ended. (J.A. 497-505; 513.) Ther efor e, the c ourt finds that the B I A made mor e than a g ener alized determination that circ umstances in the country have f undamentally

chang ed and instea d eng ag ed in an “ individualiz ed17

a na ly sis fo c us ingon

the sp e c if

ic ha rm su ff e re d a nd the re la tio ns hip to it o f i nf or ma tio n c on ta ine d in a countr y repor t.” Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1079 ( 9th Cir. 2000). L ike the applica

nts in Liti

, Antar a lso failed to produc e evide nce of his own to rebut the g ov e rn me nt’ s e vid e nc e that, d ue to ch a ng e d co nd iti on s in Sier ra L e on e , Ant a r doe s not ha ve a we llfounded f ear of future perse cution at the hands of RUF rebe ls. D r. Kamoo’s testimony reg arding the possible exacerbation of Antar’ s mental hea lth sy mptoms if he returns to Sier ra L eone is not re levant and thus does not serve as cor roborative ev i d en ce t h at Antar ha s a we ll-founded f ear of future p e r s e c u t i o n b y t h e r e b e l s . S i m i l a r l y, e v e n i f D r . P r e s h o l d t , a p r o f e s s o r o f A f r i c a n a n d W o r l d H i s t o r y,

wa s q ua lif ie d to op ine a

bo ut A nta

r’ s me ntal he a lthsy

mpt oms , it

is n ot c or

ro bo ra tiv e fo r t he same

rea son. Finally , Dr. Presholdt’s specula tion that Antar might be subject to phy sical harm in the e vent that arme d conflict re sumes is not compelling corr oborative e vidence of Antar ’s well-f ounded fe ar of future perse cution at the hands of RUF re bels. For the rea sons sta ted above, the court finds that the g overnme nt met its burden of re butting the pre sumption of future per secution by establi s hing by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that conditions in Sierra L eone have c hang ed to an e x tent that Antar no long er ha s a we ll-founded f ear of be in g p e r s e c u te d b y RU F r e b e ls u p o n h is r e tu

r n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o u rt a f f ir ms the B I A’s deter mination that Antar fa iled to establish his eligibility for a sy lum. Moreover , like the Liti c ou rt , this court finds that, since Anta r fa iled to establish his eligibilit y fo r asy lum, he cannot sa tisfy the more string ent standar d for withholding of re moval or re lief under the CAT. D. Rem oval to Sierra Leone or , in the Alternative , to Lebanon Antar objects to being remove d to Sierra L eone or , in the alternative, to L ebanon. F irst, Antar

a rgue s th a t r e mov a l to Sie rr a L e on e is impr op e r be c a us e “ it is app a re nt f

ro m th e re c or d a

nd the [I J’s]18

decision that the [I J ] di d not believe that Anta r last re sided in Sierra L eone or that he is from Sierr a L eone.” (Pet’r B r. at 55.) Sec ondly , Antar a rg ues that the I J err ed by

order ing A ntar re moved, in the al t er n at i ve, to L ebanon be cause Antar pr esente d evidenc e that he is not a c itiz en or national of L ebanon. (

Id. ) When the alien does not desig nate a country of re moval, the Attorney

Gene ral is re quired by statut e to re mov e the a lie n to a ny c ou ntr y wh e re the a lie n is a “ su bje c t, na tio na l, or c itiz en” unle ss the g overnme nt of the country ref uses to acc ept the alien. 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(D ). When the alien cannot be remove d to the country of nationality

or citizenship, then the Attorney Gene ral is re quired to desig nate a

country that falls i nto one of seven categ ories li sted in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)( E). Her e, pursuant to 8 U.S.C

. § 1231(b)( 2)(E) (iv), the I J was c lear ly permitted to desig nate Sierr a L eone a s the first coun t ry

of re moval beca

use Antar was born the re. Simi larly , the Attorney Gene ral may proper ly desig nate L ebanon a s an alter nate c ountry

of re moval if L ebanon w ould acc ept him into the country , and if re moval to Sierra L eone i s “i m prac ticable, inadvisa ble, or impossible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 2)(E) . Acc ording ly , this court finds that the B I A did not err when it remove d Antar to Sierr a L eone or , in the alternative, to L ebanon. IV . C ON CL USI ON The c ourt AF FI RMS t he B I A’s fina l order de ny ing A ntar a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and protec tion under the CAT be cause Antar c annot establi s h a we ll-founded f ear of per secution or a likelihood of torture in lig ht of cha ng ed countr

y conditions in S ierra

L eone.