NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 13a0781n.06 No. 12-3260 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

J ACKSON SEO, Sr. MI REI L L E SEO, and JACKS ON SEO, Jr., Petitioners,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J r., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF AN O R D E R O F T H E B O A R D O F I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL

Be fore : DAUGHT REY, ROGERS, and McKEAG UE, Circuit J udg es.

MARTHA CRAI G DAUGH TREY, Circuit J udg e. The lead petitioner in this immigra tion

case , J ackson Seo, Sr., petitions on his own behalf and that of his wife and son for revie w of a Boa rd of I mmigra

tion Appea ls (B I A) order deny ing his application for asy lum, withholding of remova l,

an d protec tion under the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture

. Seo contends that th e BI A

err ed in a ffirming the immigra tion judg e’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination a

nd in f inding that he failed to provide sufficie nt evidenc e to corr oborate his claim. He also arg ues that the BI A err ed in concluding that he had fa i l ed t o establish a well-founded fear of future perse cution, elig ibilit y for relief from withhol ding, and eligibil i t y fo r p rot ection under the C onvention Ag ainst Torture

. For the re asons set out below, we deny the petition for re view.Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND

Seo is a native a

nd citizen of L iberia. On Fe bruar y 3, 2007, he wa s admitted to the United States on a non-immigra

nt visa

. Upon arr ival in the United States, he joined his w ife Mireille Seo and six -y ear -old son, who wer e admitted to the United States on non-immigra nt visas on November 25, 2006. On April 26, 2007, Seo filed a timely application for asy lum and withholding of remova l with the Depa

rtment of Homela

nd Security

(DHS).

I n the application, Seo asser ted that he was seeking asy lum on the basis of his rac e, political opinion, and membership in a particula r social g roup. (Seo later clar ified that by rac e he meant ethnicity , specific ally his ethnic identit y as a member of the Krahn tribe.) H e cla imed that he had suffe red perse cution both in L iberia and in Seneg al, wher e he lived from 2002 until 2007, by members of the L iberian ex-president Charles Tay lor’s “death squad,” working in collabora tion with supporters of the L iberian Consul Gene ral in Se n ega l

. These g roups targ eted Seo, he claimed, beca use of his family ’s association with another L iberian ex-president, and Tay lor’s political rival, Samuel Doe. They also targ eted Seo beca use of his political prominence among the L iberian expatriate community in Seneg al, which led the Consul Gene ral (who was appointed by Tay lor) to view Seo as a

threa t to his pol itical power

.
Seo claimed that these g roups threa tened him and on two occa sions phy sically attacke d him. The first attack took place during a J uly 2006 trip Seo made to L iberia to talk to prominent L iberians about his desire to repla ce the Consul Gene ral in Seneg al. The day afte r Seo met with a family friend

2 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 and the f ormer A ssistant Com manding Gene ral of L iberia, W olo Mag ba, and inf ormed him of his desire t o b ec o m e t he L iberian Consul Gene ral in Seneg al, three men who claimed to be L iberian police off icer s arr ived at Seo’s r esidenc e and reque sted he come with them. They then drove him
to a remote are a outside of Monrovia and beat and pistol whipped him. Seo said that he esca ped only afte r other people approa ched the are a, causing the three assailants to drive awa y . At that point, Seo claimed, he manag ed to make contac t with a cousin who arr ang ed for him to g et medical trea tment from a friend. I n his asy lum application, S eo s t ated that he and his cousin also went to the pol ice station afte r the attack to repor t the incident. (I n subsequent testimony , Seo testified that his cousin went alone to report the inc ident to the police on Seo’s be half.)

The s ec o nd attack took place afte r Seo had returne d to Seneg al and had beg un rec eiving almost daily death threa ts. Out of fea r for his life and the lives of his family , Seo sent his wife and

son to the United States to live with his fathe r, who had been g rante d asy lum some y ear s befor e. Seo himself moved to the re s i d en ce of a diplomatic friend for safe ty but was never theless injured, he said, when a jeep as sociated with the L iberian Consul Gene ral in Seneg al cra shed into his car on J anuar y 26, 2007. I n an addendum to his asy lum application, Seo claimed that the driver of the jeep, afte r cras h i n g i n t o S eo’s car , told him: “[T] his was a joke. Wait until next wee k...” (Seo later testified that what the driver actua lly said was “y ou will see,” in Fr ench.) As a re s u l t , Seo left Seneg al for the United States four day s later and, even then, not w ithout incident. He claimed that the man who drove him to the airport on J anuar y 30, 2007, was attacke d and brutally stabbed upon his return. Seo also claimed that, while living in I vory Coast from 1993 to 1997, he was attacke d on

3 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 two occa sions by members of a g roup calling itself the Patriotic Youth of the I vory Coast. The g roup targ eted Seo beca

use they falsely believed that he had rec eived milit ary training when he worke d for the U.S. Army as a translator for the Afric an Crisis Response I nitiative (ACRI ) in 1999. They also falsely believed that Seo was a spy for the U.S. Gover nment who h ad helped foment the rebe l
movement that overthre w the go v ernment of the I vory Coast in Dec ember of 1999. I n order to punish Seo for these alleg ed crimes, they assaulted him, first in 1999 and then in 2002. I n the second attack, wh i ch t o o k p l ac e at Seo’s hom e, S eo claimed that he was war ned he would be kil led i f he

rema ined in the house the next day

. As a result, Seo an d h i s famil y temporar ily moved into the house of Andy Br ooks, the Prog ram Manag er of the org anization Save the Children, for whom Seo worke d at the time. Seo claimed that the family wa s ev en t u all y “eva cuate d” from I vory Coast to Seneg al.

I n his a sy lum a

pplication, Seo claimed that he fea red that he would be tortured or killed by one of these groups if he returned to L iberia and reque sted asy lum on beha l f o f h i m s el f, his wife, Mireille, and his son.

I n April 2008, DHS commence d remova l proce eding s against Seo and his family , who appea red befor e an immigra tion judge and rene wed their application for asy lum, withholding of

remova l, and protec tion unde r the Convention Ag ainst Torture. T he judg e held a hear ing, dur ing which h e hear d testimony from Seo, Seo’s cousin, I saac Dweh, and Mireille Seo. After the conclu s i o n o f t est imony , the immigra tion judge issued an oral decision in which he found that, althoug h Dweh and M ireille S eo wer e credible witnesses, Seo himself was not. The im migr ation 4 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 judge also found that Seo had failed to provide sufficie nt corro borating evidenc e to establish the

cre dibilit y of his claim. He conclude d that Seo had not established either past perse cution or a wellfounded fea

r of future perse cution and, acc ording ly , denied Seo’s and his family ’s applications for asy lum and withholding of r emoval.

The BI A aff

irmed the immigra tion judge ’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination and found Seo and his family ineligible for asy lum, withholding of remova l, or protec tion u n d er C o n vention Ag ainst Torture. Seo now seeks to over

turn that dec ision.

DISCUSSIO N

Stand ard of Review

“Our revie w of administrative asy lum and withholding of remova l elig ibilit y deter minations i s l i m i t ed t o a defe rential standard.” Allabani v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 674 (6th Cir. 2005). When, as here , “the BI A revie ws the immigra t i o n j u d g e’s decision and issues a separ ate opinion, rathe r than summarily aff irming the immigra tion judge ' s decision, we revie w the BI A' s decision as the final ag ency deter

mination.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 20 0 9 ). “To the
extent the BI A adopted the immigra tion judge ’s rea s oning, howeve r, this Court also revie ws the immigra tion judge’ s decision.” Id

. “Que stions of law are revie wed de novo, but substantial defe renc e is g iven to the BI A’s interpre tation of

the [I mmigra

tion and Nationality Act] a nd acc ompany ing reg ulations.” Id

. “The

5 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 BI A’s interpre tat i o n o f t he statute and reg ulations will be upheld unless the interpre tation is ‘ar bitrary , capr icious, or manifestly contra ry to the statute.’” Sad v. INS , 246 F.3d 811, 815 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984))

. We revie w fac tual finding s under a substantial-evidenc e standard, upholding the ag ency ’s deter mination “as long as it is supported by rea sonabl e , s u b s ta n tial, and probative evidenc e on the rec ord considere d as a whole.” Parlak v. Holder , 578 F.3d 457, 462 (6th Cir. 2009) (i n t er n al ci tations omitted). “[T] he administrative finding s of fac t are conclusive unless any rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled
to conclude to the contra

ry .” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B )))

. This case is g overne d by the

cre dibilit y standards established by the REAL I D Act of 2005. See El-Moussa v. Holder , 569 F.3d 250, 256 (6th Cir. 2009) (“The cre dibilit y standards of the Act apply t o applications for asy lum, withholding of r emoval, or othe r re lief fr om removal filed on or afte r May

11, 2005.”).

The Adverse Cr edibil ity Det erm ination

Seo contends that the BI

A err ed in af

firming the immigra tion judge ’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination beca

use substantial evidenc e does not support it. The immigra tion judge conclude d that Seo was not cre dible for three rea sons. First, the judge found numerous inconsistencies betwee n Seo’s testimony at the hear ing and his w ritten asy lum a pplication, and betwee n Seo’s testimony at the hear ing and the testimony of other witnesses, including both Seo’s wife, Mireille, and his cousin, I saac Dweh. Second, the judge noted that Seo was either “wholly non-re sponse to the question[s ]” asked o f h i m , or “fe lt need to add a g rea t deal of non-re sponsive information that plainly was intended only to enhanc e his asy lum claim.” Finally , the judge noted that some of Seo’s testimony 6 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260

was simply not believable

. As an ex am p l e of implausible testimony , the judge pointed to Seo’s

asser tion that when he was attacke d in L iberia in J uly 2006, h e wa s beate n for 30 to 35 minutes without any one interc eding and without requiring hospitaliz ation afte r the a ttack.

Seo contends that the inc onsistencies in his testimony , and betwe en his testimony and that of others, do not provide substantial evidenc e o f h i s lack of cre dibilit y beca use they wer e either unimportant or ref

lect mere ly the differ ing views of the witnesses. He arg ues t h at wh at the immigra tion judge took to be his non-re sponsiveness at the hear ing mere ly ref lected his nervousne ss to be testify ing befor e the court. He also arg ues that the immigra tion judge ’s conclusion that he was not cre dibl e i s inconsistent with the j udg e’s conclusion that his wife, who provided corroborating testimony , was cre dible. Finally , he arg ues that t h e j u d ge m i s u nderstood his replies and for that

rea son deeme d portions of his testimony “implausible.”

Se o is c o r r e c t th a t, in s e v e r a l instances, the immigra tion judge misint erpr eted Seo’s testimon y at t he re m o v al h ea ring and, for that rea son, found i t implausible. Seo did not in fac t testify at t he

remova l hear ing that the m en who attacke d him in L iberia in 2006 beat him for 30 to 35 min u t es,

as the immigra

tion judge as s er ted in his oral opinion. I nstead, Seo testified that he was with his assailants for a total of 20 to 25 minutes and that this time estimate included the time it took to trave l
to the remote location wher e he was taken out of the car and beate n. At no point did Seo specify prec isely how long the beating itself lasted. Nor does his descr iption of the attack make it impossibl e to believe that he did not require hospitaliz ation afte rwa rds. Seo claimed that his assailants beat him with the ir fists while he wa s in the car and jammed a g un in his mouth, a nd that afte r they stopped 7 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 the car and g ot out, they continued to hit and kick him. The immigra tion judge’s conclusion that Seo’s acc ount of the attac k is impl ausible does not the ref ore appea r to be supported by substantial evidenc e.

The im migr ation judge was also incorre ct when he asserted that Mireille S eo’s acco u n t of the 2002 attack on their home in I vory Coast conflicte d with t h at of her husband. I n his oral testimony , Seo testified that, during the attack, his wife was forc ed by the attacke rs to strip naked. The immigra tion judge stated in his ruling that Mireille Seo’s testimony on this point contra dicted that of her husband’s beca use, in her acc ount of the attack, she failed to mention that she was forc ed
to disrobe. Howeve r, as the B I A noted in its order , Mireille S eo did testify that she was forc ed to strip na ked by the assailants. Her testimony there fore corr oborate s, rathe r than contra dicts, that of her husba nd.

I t is difficult to conclude that these inconsistencies p ro v i d e support for the immigra tion judge ’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination. S

ee S a r r v. Gonzales , 485 F.3d 354, 360-61 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) (disreg arding immigra tion judge finding s that “involved a misint erpr etation of the e v id e n c e ” )

. Howeve r, i n aff

irming the immigra tion judge ’s adverse c redibility deter mination, the BI A di d not rely upon the immigra tion judg e’s finding that Seo’s acc ount of the 2006 attack was implausible. Nor did it rely upon the findi ng that Mireille Seo’s wife ’s testimony contra dicted Seo’s testimony with respe ct to her forc ed disrobing during the 2002 attack. I nstead, the BI A relied upon four other inconsistencies that the immigra tion judge identified in Seo’s testimony , as well as the judge ’s

8 - -Seo, et al. v. Holder

No. 12-3260 conclusion that Seo was a non-responsive witness who made “repeated attempts to expand upon his answers [in] an attempt to enhance his asylum claim.” Leaving aside the erroneous findings of the immigration judge, the question then becomes whether these four inconsistencies, when combined with the immigration judge’s observations about Seo’s demeanor at the removal hearing, provide substantial evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The four inconsistencies which the BIA identified in Seo’s testimony are: (1) Seo’s failure to mention in his written asylum application what he and his wife both testified to during the removal hearing namely, that during the 2002 attack on their home in the Ivory Coast, Mireille Seo was forced to strip naked; (2) the inconsistency between Seo’s assertion in both his written and oral testimony that he left Liberia in 1993 and his cousin Isaac Dweh’s testimony that Seo left Liberia with him in 1990; (3) the inconsistency between Seo’s assertion in his written asylum application that he went with his cousin to the Liberian police to report the July 2006 attack against him and his testimony at the removal hearing that his cousin in fact went to the police alone; and (4) the inconsistency in Seo’s account of his employer’s response to the death threats that Seo purportedly began receiving on an almost daily basis after he returned to Senegal from his trip to Liberia in 2006. Specifically, the BIA noted the inconsistency between Seo’s assertion in his written application that “his employer made arrangements for him to relocate to a different home after he informed them [sic] of the threats” and Seo’s testimony at the removal hearing that, after he “informed his employer about the threats. . . he was told by his employer that ‘it was a Liberian issue’ and not work related.” “We review separately each of the . . . inconsistencies upon which the

9 - -Seo, et al. v. Holder

No. 12-3260 IJ and BIA based the adverse credibility determination" to see if the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Abdurakhmanov v. Holder , 666 F.3d 978, 982 (6th Cir. 2012). The first inconsistency in Seo’s testimony that the BIA identified provides little or no support for the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Asylum applicants do not have to provide comprehensive detail in their written asylum claim to be considered credible. Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 637 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[T[he circumstances surrounding the application process do not often lend themselves to a perfectly complete and comprehensive recitation of an applicant's claim to asylum or withholding, and . . . holding applicants to such a standard is not only unrealistic but also unfair.”) (quoting Secaida-Rosales v. INS , 331 F.3d 297, 308 (2d Cir. 2003)). As a result, “the mere failure of a petitioner to include every detail of an asylum claim in the application itself should not be considered fatal to a petitioner’s request for relief.” Kaba v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 741, 749 (6th Cir. 2008). All that is required is that the application “contain at least some indication of the type of assertions that will be made in support of [the] claim.” Id. For that reason, although omissions generally can serve as the basis of an adverse credibility finding, they are not definitive when they involve claims that are subsequently elucidated at the hearing as was the case here. The fourth inconsistency that the BIA identified in Seo’s testimony also does not appear to provide support for its adverse credibility determination, because the BIA was mistaken in its reading of the record. Seo did not in fact claim in his asylum application that after he informed his employer in Senegal about the threats against him, “his employer made arrangements for him to relocate to a different home.” What Seo in fact wrote in his application was that “[o]ut of fear for my life and 10 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 upon the advice of the Reg ional Security Offic er of Save the Children Sweden

. . . I moved to the residenc e of a diplomatic friend in Seneg al for safe ty .” Seo claimed, in other wo rd s , that an employ ee at Save the Children g ave him a dvice about what to do in response to the threa ts a g ainst him. Nowher e in the application does Seo asser t that any one associate d with Save t h e C h i l d re n helped him move. Seo’s wr itten application is not theref ore inconsistent w ith his testimony at the

remova l hear ing that, when he told his employ er about the threa ts ag ainst him, he was told that there

was nothing Save the Children could do for him beca use the threa ts did not rela te to Seo’s work for the org anization. I nstead, Seo’s oral testimony only co n fi rm ed what he asser ted in his written appli cation: that, out of fea r for his life, he moved into the home of a friend who worke d as a diplomat and, there fore , presumably had better

secur ity at home than Seo himself.

Neve rtheless, the other two inconsistencies that the BI A identified as a basis for the adver se

cre dibilit y deter

mination do provide support for its finding that Seo is not cre dible, even though both of them ar e re latively

inconseque ntial to Seo’s asy lum c laim. Be cause Seo does not a lleg e that he was persec uted either in L iberia or in I vory Coast betwee n 1990 an d 1 993, littl e turns on whether Seo l eft L iberia in 1990, as his cousin I saac Dweh testified, or left in 1993, as he claimed in his written application and oral testimony

. Simi larly , littl e turns on whether Seo went with his cousin to the police station to repor t the attack ag ainst him in 2006, or whether the cousin went alone “on Seo’s behalf

.” This inconsistency does not speak to the broade r question of whether the attack itself did in fac t occur . Neither of these inconsistencies, in other words, g oes to the hear t of Seo’s asy lum claim. Howeve r, beca

use this case is g overne d by the cre dibilit y standards established by the REAL

11 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 I D Act of 2005, see El-Moussa v. Holder , 569 F.3d at 256, they can still serve as the basis of an adver se cre dibilit y deter

mination. The Act require s courts to look at the “totality of circ umstances” when making cre dibilit y

deter minations, and expl icitly

permits triers of f

act to:

. . . base a cre dibil i ty deter mination on the demeanor, candor, or responsivene ss of the applicant or witness, the inhere nt plausibilit y o f the applicant' s or witness' s acc ount, the consistency betwe en the applicant' s or witness' s written and oral sta t em en t s . . . the internal consistency of eac h such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidenc e of rec ord

. . . , and any inacc urac i es or falsehoods in such s t at ements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccurac y, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's clai m, or any other relev ant factor

. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( A)(iii) (( emphasis adde d).

Under the defe rential standard o f revie w that g overns BI A cre dibilit y deter minations, we there fore aff

irm the BI

A’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mina t i o n . See Alhaj v. Holder , 576 F.3d 533, 537-538 (6th Cir. 2009) (“To overturn

. . . a fac tual deter mination [of the BI A], ‘we must find that
t he evidenc e not only supports [a contra ry ] conclusion, but compels it.’” (quoting INS v. E l i a s Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992))

. The two inconsistencies identified above make it difficult
to arg ue that the evidenc e “compe ls” the panel to find Seo cre dible, particula rly when combined with the immigra tion judge ’s finding that Seo was a non-re sponsive and evasive witness, a deter mination of deme anor tha t is virtually impossibl e to assess f

rom a wr itten transcr ipt.

12 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 The Corroborat ing E vidence Rulings

Seo also arg ues that the B I A er red in a ffirming the immigra tion judg e’s conclusion that he failed to provide sufficie nt corr oborating evidenc e to establish past perse cution and a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution. Under the REAL I D Act, “[t] he testim o ny of the applicant may be sufficie nt to sustain the applicant’ s burden without corr oboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the t rier of fac t that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is pe rsuasive, a nd ref ers to spec ific fa cts sufficie nt to demonstrate that the applicant is a ref ug ee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( ii). Howeve r, “[w]here the t rier of fac t deter

mines that t h e applicant should provide evidence that corr oborate s otherwise

cre dible testimony , such evidenc e must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidenc e and cannot rea sonably obtain the ev i d ence.” Id. We will not “re verse a determination made by a trier of fac t with respe ct to the availability of corr oborating evidenc e, . . . unless [we fi n d ] that a

rea sonable trier of fac t is compelled to conclude that such corr oborating evidenc e is una vailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

I n this case , the i mmigra

tion judge conclude d that Seo did not provide suff icient evidence
to corr oborate the claim s he made in his written application and at the hear ing. Specifica lly , the judge noted the lack of: (1) a statement from the cousin, Emitte Doele, who picked Seo up afte r he

was attacke d in L i b er i a in 2006, helped g et Seo medical trea tment, and repor ted the attack to the police; (2) a statement from Doele’ s friend, Dinah Sateh, who provided Seo medical trea tment afte r the attack; (3) a statement from the fr i en d , L i nus Sarkor, who drove him to Sierra L eone after the 2006 attack so that he could g et further medical trea tment; (4) a statement from Andy Br ooks, Seo’s 13 - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 boss at Save the Children, with whom Seo and his family lived afte r the 2002 attack; (5) a letter from the driver who Seo claims was stabbed afte r he drove Seo to the airport in 2007; (6) a letter from Colonel Mag ba, the family friend with whom Seo met in L iberia in J uly 2006, the day befor e he was attacke d by

the three ersa tz pol ice of fice rs.

Seo arg ues that, in findi n g t h at h e failed to provide sufficie nt corr oborating evidenc e, the immigra tion judge ignor ed the extensive corr oborating evidenc e that he did provide. This evidenc e includes, most rele vantly : a cer tificate from the U.S. milit ary , demonstrating Seo’s participa tion in the AC R I prog ram in 1999; a letter from the secur ity advisor at Save the Children in I vory Coast, dated J anuar

y 24, 2007, attesting to the serious threa ts that Seo had rec eived “bec ause of his active involvement in the political life of his community in Seneg al” ; a n e w s p a p e r article , entitled “‘I sakaba Boy s’ Br utalise For

mer Gene ral’s R el at i ve,” descr ibing the attack ag ainst Seo that took place in 1 L iberia in 2006; a letter from Andy Br ooks, dated November 18, 2002, info rm i n g S eo o f his reloc ation to the reg ional office in Daka r in response to his conce rns about the secur ity situation in I vory Coast; tw o t y

pewr itten letters (the first signe d by the “I sakaba Networ k,” the second signed by “Conce rned citizens, seneg al”) , war ning Seo in Eng lish that “we do here by promise we will be meeting or escor

ting y ou very soon to y our final destination” and that “You have signe d y our own death war rant” ; and an a ffidavit from Seo’s uncle, Moses Wright, a former g ener al in the L iberian

A s S e o e x p l a i n e d i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , a n d d u r i n g t h e r e m o v a l h e a r i n g , “ I s a k a b a B o y s ” i s a t e r m u s e d t o r e f e r t o t h e 1 m e m b e r s o f C h a r l e s T a y l o r ’ s “ d e a t h s q u a d ” w h o c o n t i n u e t o o p e r a t e i n L i b e r i a . -14- - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260

ar m y , testify ing to the perse cution that Charles Tay lor perpe trated ag ainst members of the Kra h n people a nd the L iberian military

during the L iberian c ivil war.

Seo also notes that the t estimony of his wife Mireille (whom t he im migr ation judge found
to be a cre dible witnesses) corr oborate s signific ant portions of his testimony , including his acc ount of the 2002 attack on his house in L iberia. He arg ues that the additional corr oborating evidenc e that the judge require d was not rea sonably available and that his failure to procur e it should not undermine the cre dibilit y of his asy lum claim.

T his arg ument is not completely without merit. As we have noted, “The corro b o ra t i n g evidenc e standard is ty

pically invoked by [i mmigra tion judge s] when the applicant has submitt ed littl e or no evidenc e to corr oborate her testimony .” Abdurakhmanov , 666 F.3d at 983. I n this case , Seo submitt ed corr oborating evidenc e, but the hear ing judge questioned the authenticity of some of it, particula

rly the ty pewr itten death threa t that Se o s u b m i t t ed from the “I sakaba Networ k.” The judge found it difficult to believe that “[t] he I ssakaba network

. . . would be polite and car ef u l enoug h to indicate that the letter came from the I ssakaba Networ k and to date it.” Moreove r, much of the evidenc e that Seo provided does not compel the conclusion that the immigra tion judge or BI A (which simply adopted the immigra tion judge ’s finding s on this point) was wrong in concluding that Seo had not provided sufficie nt rea sonably available corr oborating evidenc e to sustain his burden of proof, beca

use most of the evidenc e that Seo proff ere d did not supply independe nt corr oboration of Seo’s c laims.

-15- - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 For example, the letter from Effe by Fa ll, the secur ity advisor at Save the Children, appea rs at first g lance to provide independe nt corr oboration of Seo’s claims that he was the subject of death threa ts in Seneg al, as well as in I vory Coast. The letter, addre ssed to “whom it may conce rn,” speaks of “continuing perse cution and threa ts ag ainst the person of our Reg ional Acc ountant [J ackson Seo] by opposition members of the L iberian community

. . . in Seneg al” and attests to the fac t that “Seo was a lrea dy victim of simil ar pe rsec ution in I vory Coast which led to his transfe r to Seneg al.” Neve rtheless, the letter does n o t i n d i cate how Fa ll came to lear n of the threa ts made ag ainst Seo in Sene g al or, for that matter, in I vory Coast. I n his application, Seo sug g ests that Fa ll knew about them beca

use S eo told

him they had occurre d, which is the m ost obvious explanation but does not provide indepe ndent cor robora tion of Seo’s claims.

Nor does the newspa

per article repor

ting the 2006 attack provide clea rly indep en d ent

corr oboration of Seo’s claims. The article does include a picture of someone (pre sumably Seo) who appea rs badly beate n up and bandag ed. Howeve r, the acc ount it provides of how Seo came to be in this condition wa s o b v iously derive d, either in whole or in substantial part, from interviews with Seo’s rela tives in Seneg al. There is no evidenc e in the portion of the article available in the rec ord that any of the infor

mation in the article w as base d on independe nt reporting

.
The same is true of the letter from An d y Br o oks, attesting to the fac t that Seo was being reloc ated to the reg ional office in Daka r, Seneg al, due to secur ity conce rns in I vory Coast. The letter does not make clea

r how Br ooks, or the org anization g ener ally , came to k n o w of Seo’s secur ity situation. As the immigra tion judge noted at the hear ing, it fails to ref lect any persona l knowledg e -16- - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 on Br ooks’s part of

the threa ts ag ainst Seo and his family . Nor doe s it refe r in any way to the fac t that Se o and his family lived with Br ooks for sever al wee ks afte r the attack in 2002 that Seo descr ibes in his a sy lum application. The immigr ation judge indicated a t the hear ing tha t he found suspicious the absenc e of any discussion in the Br ooks letter of that incident. Suspicious or not, the fac t that the letter does not ref er to any events of which Br ooks had persona l knowledg e undermines its usefulness as cor

robora tion.

None of the other documentar y evidenc e that Seo provided the immigra tion judge provides any corr oboration of Seo’s specific claims of perse cution. And, althoug h his wife’ s testimony

corr oborate d his acc ount of the 1999 and 2002 attacks on their home in I vory Coast and was based

on first-hand knowledg e, her knowledg e of the attack in 2006 was only second- hand, g iven that she

was not in L iberia when the attack occur red. Take n all toge ther, the evidenc e does not compe l the conclusion that the immigra tion judge was wrong in finding that Seo h ad p ro vided insufficient

corr oborating evidenc e to sustain his burden of pr oof.

Nor does the evidenc e c o mp e l th e conclusion that the immigra tion judge err ed in deter mining that additional corr oborating evidenc e was “re asonably available .” I n this circ uit, supporting documentation is rea sonably available “if it is of the ty pe that would normally be cre ated or available in the particula

r country and is acc essible to the alien, such as throug h fr i en d s , re l ati ves, or

co-w orker s.’” Doros h v. A s h croft , 398 F.3d 379, 382-384 (6th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotations omitted). Seo arg ues that the letters from Doele, Sateh, Sarkor, Br ooks, Mag ba, or the driver of his

car wer e not rea sonably available to him while he was living in Afric a beca use he did not know that -17- - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 he would later need them and, in the case of Gene ral Mag ba, fea red making contac t with him to ask for a letter be cause of suspicions that Mag ba wa s involved in the 2006 attack. Once in the United States, Seo claims, he lost contac t with many of those individuals and such letters wer e there fore not “ac cessible” to him.

I n terms of acc essibility , we have sug g ested that statements from witnesses from whom the applicant has lost contac t should not be considered reasona bly available

. Lin v. Holde r , 565 F.3d 971, 977 (6th Cir. 2009) (assuming that “a rea sonable trier of fa ct m ay conclude corr oborating evidenc e is unavailable from” a wit ness with whom the applicant had los t contac t). But, we have also held that corr oborating sta te me nts from witnesses to the perse cution that the petitioner descr ibes in h is asy lum application are rea sonably available when the petitioner rema ins in reg ular contac t w it h those witnesses. See Hache m v. Holder , 656 F.3d 430, 434-35 (6th Cir. 2011) (af firming the BI A’s finding that corr oborating evidenc e from the applicant’ s g irlfriend, mother, and fathe r was “re asonably available” gi v en appli cant’ s testimony that he “had reg ular contac t with his family members a

nd his girlf

riend” ).

Her e, the fac t that Seo lost contac t with his cousin Emitte Doele, Do el e’ s friend Sateh, Sarkor, or Andy Br ooks means that a rational trier of fac t could conclud e t hat corr oborating
statements from them wer e not “re asonably available ” to him. There is no evidenc e, howeve r, that Seo had lost contac t with Mag ba or did not know how to rea ch him, and it is unclea r why Seo would fea r contac ting him from the United States. There is, f urthermor e, clea

r evidenc e that Seo had not lost contac t with the driver of his car , who he claims was stabbed afte r dropping Seo off at the airport -18- - -Seo, et al. v. H older No. 12-3260 in J anuar y 2007. Seo testified that he had spoken to the driver on the telephone afte r he left Seneg al and, in that way , came to learn tha t he had be en attac ked.

We conclude , on the rec ord befor e us, that the evidenc e does not compel us to hold that the immigra tion judge , or the BI A, was wrong in finding that Seo failed to provide rea sonably available

corr oborating evidenc e of his cla im.

The Pe rsec ution Clai m s Finally , Seo challeng es the immigra tion judge ’s decision that he failed to establish either past perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of future perse cu t ion on which to base a g rant of asy lum, withholding of remova l, or protec tion under the Con v en t i o n Against Torture

. Howeve r, “[the immigra tion judge ’s] cre dibilit y finding is fata l to all three of [S eo’s] claims for relief .” El-Moussa , 569 F.3d at 266. I ndeed, an adver se cre dibilit y finding prec ludes an applicant from demonstrating either the well-founde d fea r of future perse cution nece ssary to establish elig ibilit y for asy lum, or the “cle ar probability ” of future perse cution nece ssary to qualify for withholding of remova l. Id. at 267. An adverse credibility finding also prec ludes relief under the torture c onvention. Zhao v. Holder , 569 F.3d 238, 249 ( 6th Cir. 2009).

CONCLUSION

For the re asons set out above , we DE NY the pe tition for review

.

-19- - -