T he H o no rable G eral d E
. R o sen, U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he E ast ern D i st ri ct of M i chi gan, s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. 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: 07a0645n.06 F iled: August 31, 2007 Case No. 06- 3977 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT M AN SOU R SA LL, P etitioner , v. ALBERTO R. G ONZA LES , Attor ney G e ne r al, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N AP P EA LS

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and DAUG HTREY, Circuit Judges; ROSEN, District Judge * ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioner Mansour Sall ( “Sall”) appea ls the decision of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) aff irming the I mm i gration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) de nia l of Sa ll’ s a sylum

a pp lic a tio n a

nd re qu e st f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. F ind ingno me ri t in Sall’s contentions on appea l, we DENY Sall’s petition for revie w of the B I A’s dec ision. I. Sall claims to be a citizen and national of Mauritania, with ties to both the Fulani and Wolof ethnic g roups, which a

re pa rt of the lar g er g roup g ener ically ref err ed to a s “B l ack Moors.” Mauritania ha s a history

of conflict betwee n the Bla ck Moors and the Whit e Moors, who fr om 1989-2

1991 committed human rig hts abuses ag ainst the B lack Moors, e x pelling the m from the countr y or fo rc ing the m to fl e e . Sa ll t e sti fi e d th a t a lth ou g h h is h e ri ta g e is F ula ni, he wa s su

rr ound e d b y

Wolo fs , identifies with their traditions, and spea ks their lang uag e. Acc ording to Sall, the Mauritanian gove rnment seiz ed his family ’s farmland along the r iver in Bog he — as w ell as the land of many of his black ne ighbor s — in J uly of 1998, and g ave it to the Whit e Moors. Sall, his father , mother, and sist er were told that “Mauritania is for the White Moors only ,” and w ere taken to a military camp in Aleg , Mauritania, w here they wer e mi s t re at ed under harsh c onditions. At l east eighty other F ulanis and Wolofs were held at the Ale g milit ary camp, a nd
eac h day the soldiers for ced the detainee s to make and c arr y bricks. Sall claims that the soldiers beat him with a rope, lea

ving a scar on his back. Af

ter fif teen da y s, the soldiers took Sall and the other s to the ri ve r and fo rc e d the m to c ro ss int o the ne ig hb or ing c ountr y of Se ne g a l. Sa ll and his f a mil y
wer e take n to a re fug ee c amp in Podor, Seneg al, which house d over 100 r efug ees, a nd Sall remained there for thre e y ear s. Sall claims that while he was at the P odor refug ee camp, he me t a smug g ler wh o off e re d to pay his tr a ve l fare to the Un ite d Stat e s and pr ov ide a pa ssp or t th a t Sa ll c ou ld u se to
e nte r t he c ountr y , o n th e c on dit ion

that Sa ll w ou ld la te r re pa

y him $4 ,0 00
. On

Au g us t 7t

h, 20 01 , Sa ll
arr ived in the United States via J FK Airport i n New York. Sall then settled in Columbus, Ohio, for
e ig ht mon ths be fo re mov ingto L ou isv ill e , K e ntu c ky , w he re he be g an w or kin g and takin g En g lis h
c la sse s. Sall claims that if he wer e to re turn to Mauritania, the g overn m en t would kill hi m. He testified that his wife se nt him a letter, explaining that Sall’s uncle , Ablay e Sall, attempted to re -ente r Mauritania, but wa s beate n so sever ely by the Mauritania

n soldiers at t he border that he died upon his re tur n to Se ne g a l. Sa ll p ro du c e d th e le tte r f ro m hi s w if

e a s e vid e nc e of

his un c le ’s de a th, bu t,3

contra ry to h is te s ti mo n y , th e le tt e r it s e lf d id n o t r e f e r e n c e h is u n c le in an y w ay , a lt h o u g h it was
acc ompanied by

a copy of what Sall claimed was his uncle’ s death c ertificate. On April 8, 2002, S all filed an application for asylum and for withholding of r emoval base d
on rac e and me mbership in a par ticular socia l gr ou p , an d for withholding of re moval under the Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e . T he De pa

rtme nt of Ho me land Se c ur ity fi le d a Not ic e to A pp e a r w ith the I mmigration Court, noti ng that Sall was removable as an alien w ho did not possess a valid entry document. Following a hear ing, the I J conclude d that Sall wa s not a cre dible wi t n es s b ec ause, despite prof

essing to be a f

arme r, he la cked know ledg e of Maur itanian ag ricultural ter minology and pr oc e dure s; h e wa s n ot a wa re of imp or tant e ve nts wh ic h o c c ur

re d in his c ountr

y wh e n h e wa s a teena g er ( i.e., t he expulsion of 70,000 Blac k Moors in 1989-91); he pr ovided vague testimony reg ardinghis arre st and incar cer ation; and his overa ll story was i n co n sistent with the country ’s conditions in 1998. The I J also held that Sall f ailed to show by clea

r and convincingevidenc e that he fi le d h is a sylum

a pp lic a tio n w ith in o ne y e ar o f h is a rr iva l in the Un ite d St a te s b e c a

us e the on ly evidenc e of his ar

rival date was “ his own less than cre dible testimony .” Even if the a pplication wer e timely , howeve r, the I J conclude d that Sall did not show past perse cution or a we ll-founded f ear of future pe rsec ution and denied his reque sts f or asylum, withholding of remova l, a nd relief under the Convention a g ainst Torture
. The only evidenc e indicating

that Sall would be tortured wa s the letter from Sall’s w ife, which was inconsistent w ith “ backg round materia l.” Finally , the I J conclude d that Sa ll’ s r e qu e s tf

o r a s y l u m s h o u l d

f a i l f o r ana d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n , n a m e l y , h i s t h r e e - y e ar r e s i d e n c e in Seneg al cre ated a presumption that he had firmly rese ttled there. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (stating that
a pp lic ants wh o h a ve “ fi rm ly re se ttl e d” are mand a tor ily de nie d asy lum status ); id. § 208.15 (def

ining “firm r esettlement” ).4

Th e B I A f

ound that Sa ll d id i n f

a c t me e t th e on e -y e ar s ta tut or y fi lin g de a dli ne be c a

us e his “cle ar a nd consistent testimony ” re g ardinghis arriva l date wa s not rebutted b y any contra dictory
e vid e nc e . T he B I A the n c on c lud e d tha t the I J’s adve rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingwa s n ot c le arl y e rr on e ou s,
c iti nga s su

pp or t Sa ll’ s v a g ue te sti mony

re g ard inghis fa

rm in Ma ur ita

nia , h is unf

a mil iari ty wi th pertinent a g ricultural ter minology , and his vague testimony reg ardinghis arre s t and period of incar cer ation. The B I A also held that poli tical chang es i n Mauritania neg ated Sall’s alleg ed fear of perse cution. The B I A authorized Sall’s voluntary depar ture fr om the United States, and Sall filed a petition for r eview. II. “The I J , actingfor the A ttorney General, has discretion to g rant a sy lum to any alien who qualifi es as a ‘ ref

ug ee.’ ” Y

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 ( 6th Cir. 2004). We review “administrative f

indings of f

act c oncer

ning w hether

[an] alien qualifie s as a r ef u gee under a
s u b s t an t i al evidenc e test.” Ra ma ni v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 8 F
. 3 d

5 5 4 , 5 5 8 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. C r e d i b i l i ty deter minations are f

indings of f

act r eviewe d for sub s t an t i al ev idence
. Yu , 364 F.3d at 703. Such fa c tua l f ind ing s are de e me d “ c on c lus ive un le ss any re a so na ble a dju dic a tor

wo uld be c omp e lle d to
c on c lud e to t

he c on tr ary .” 8 U .S. C. § 1252 (b) (4) (B ). Thus , th is c ourt may no t r e ve rs e sim

ply beca use it would have de cided the c ase diff ere ntly , Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 388 (6th Cir. 1998), but ma

y reve rse only if the petitioner’ s evidenc e c om pe ls a contr ary

conclusion, Rreshpja v. Gonzales , 4 20 F .3 d 5 51 , 5 54 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; se e als o INS v. Elias-Zacharias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1982) ( “[T] o obtain judicial reve rsal of the BIA’s dete rmination, [t he petitioner] must show that the
ev i d en ce he prese nted was so c ompelling that no r easona ble fa ct finder

could fa il to find [ in the petitioner’s fa

vor].”).5

Sall challeng es the B I A’s finding t h at he wa s not a cre dible witness. As an a pplicant for
a sylum , Sa ll b e ars the burd e n o f d e mon str a tin g that “ pe rs e c uti on is a re a so na

ble po ssi bil ity

sh ou ld he be r eturne d to his country of orig in.” Pe rk ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 620 ( 6th Cir. 1994). “The testimony of the a pplicant, if cr edible, may be suff icient to s u s t ai n t h e burde n of proof without
c or ro bo ratio n. ” 8 C.F .R. §§ 20 8. 13 (a ), 20 8. 16 (b ). “ Ac c or din g ly , a c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n f

or ms the initial conside ration in a n I J ’s asylum c laims a

naly sis.” Mapouya v . Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 406 (6th Cir. 2007). An applica nt is credible if his or he r “te stimo n y i s b el i ev able, c onsistent, and sufficie ntly

detailed to provide a plausible a nd coher ent ac count.” Pe rk ov ic , 33 F.3d at 621. Although an adverse c redibility finding “is aff

orded substantial de fer ence ,” it “must be base d
o n is s u e s th a t g o to th e h e art o f th e a p p li c an t’ s c la im , ” an d an y d is c r e p an c ie s mu s t “ be viewe d as attempts by

the applica

nt to enhance his claims of perse cution.” Se e Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004). An adverse cr edibility deter mination “cannot be based on a n irrele vant inconsistency ,” Da ne

sh v ar v . A sh c ro

ft , 355 F.3d 615, 619 n.2 ( 6th Cir. 2004), b u t “must be supported by

specific rea sons,” Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 637 ( 6th Cir. 2005). We f ind su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt the B I A’ s adv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ing . Sa ll’ s c la im that he wa s a

Ma ur ita nia n f arm e r w as reb utt e d b y

his ina bil ity to s ta te the size and

loc a tio n o f h is family ’s fa

rmland, as we ll as his unfamiliarity with wel l -k n o wn Mauritana in ag ricultural terminolog y . Sall could not even name the river that divides Mauritania a nd Senegal , which wa s purportedly

within walking distanc e of his home. Sall’s testimony reg arding his alleg ed ar rest and inc arc e ratio n b y

Ma ur ita nia n a uth or iti e s — wh ic h is th e c ru x of h is e nti re c la im — wa s st ri kin g ly la c kin g in d e ta il. Th is “ pla inl y va g ue and

a mbi g uo us ” te sti mony

and his “ fa il[ure ] to a

rt ic ulate meaning ful response s to the questi ons he was asked at the hearing ” sug g est that he wa s not credible.6

See Ne ziraj v. Gonzales , 207 F. App’x 550, 556 (6th Cir. 2006) ( unpublished case ) (upholding the BIA’s conc lusion that an applicant wa s not cr ed i b l e, wher e the a pplicant “c ould not offer any specific details about his abductions, interrog ations and detentions,” and his te stimony of a police be a tin g wa s “ c ur so ry

and wi tho ut m e anin g fu l e la

bo ratio n” ); Pe rk

ov ic , 33 F.3d at 615. Be cause the
c on fi sc a tio n of Sal l’ s farm land and the su bs e qu e nt a

rr e st, de te nti on , a

nd e xpuls ion

fr om M a ur ita nia form the ve ry

basis of his claim for a sy lum, these issues undoubtedly “g o to the hear t of [his ] claim.” Se e Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926. Whil e “[t]he alien’s own testimony can be sufficie nt to support an application for asylum wher e the testim o n y i s believable , consistent, and suff iciently detailed to provide a plausible a nd coher ent ac count of the ba sis for his fea r,” Pi lic a v . A sh c ro

ft , 388 F.3d 941, 954 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted), corr oborating evidenc e is nee ded whe re the applicant’ s testimony is lacking in detail so as t o call int o question his cre dibilit y . “[W ]here it is rea sonable to expect cor roborating evidenc e . . . [t] he absenc e of such corr oborating evidenc e can lead to a finding that an applicant ha s fa i l ed t o meet her

burden of

proof.” Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 8 F
. 3 d 3 7 9 , 3 8 2 ( 6 th Ci r . 2004) (quotations omitted). Sall has presente d no cre dible corr oborating evidenc e. He f ailed to produc e a witness for

his hearing , even thoug h the I J had wa rned him a

nd his counsel that “we cer tainly need a witness, if not somebody who knew him in Afr ica then s omeone who know s him well here,” be c a us e “ [w]e ne e d p ro of

of his ide nti ty .” S all ’s fai lur e to p ro vid e wi tne ss c or ro bo ratio n is damag ing to his cl aim beca use it is not clear that he is even f rom Mauritania . The United States State Depa

rtment’s 1997 Maur itania Profile of Asy lum Cl aims and Country Conditi ons, which the I J re lie d u

po n, re po rt s th a t ma

ny S enegal ese asylum

a pp lic ants pr of

e ss t o b e fr om M a

ur ita nia “bec ause the y

fee l their chance s of obt aining asylum are e nhance d by the larg ely

ethnic-ba sed human7

rig hts abuses in Mauritania betwee n 1989 and 1991.” Mor eover , “[i] t is particularly easy for Seneg alese to pretend to be Mauritanians be cause they may be from one of the same ethnic g roups
as Af ro -M auritania

ns.” Duringcross-e x amination, in response to a question about Mauritania n fa rm ingte rm ino log y , Sa ll a dmi tte d th a t “ wa lo is a, a are a that is we ll- kn ow n in Se ne g a l” — a sli p of the tong ue sug g esting that he is most likely from Seneg al, not Mauritania. Sall did p re s en t a copy

of an ide ntification ca

rd with his name and pic ture a nd which de sig nate d h is n a tio na lity a s Ma ur ita nian . B ut t

he ide nti fi c a tio n c ard ’s a uth e nti c ity

is e xtre me ly questionable in lig ht of the State De partment’s f inding that fra

udulent documentation is a common problem whe n dea l i n g wi t h Mauritanian a sy lum applicants. I n addition, Sall’s testim ony that the Mauritanian authorities chec ked his identification and returne d it to him befor e ex pelling him was inconsistent wit

h th e M a u r it a n ia n a uth o r ities’ prac tice of c onfiscatingarr estee s’ identification before
e xpe lli ngthe m f

ro m th e c ountr

y , a s r e po rt e d b y

the State De pa

rtme nt. Sall a ls o p r o v id e d

a le tt e r , p u r

p o rte d ly f r o m h is w if

e in Se n e g a l, w h ic h d e s c r ib e d the
massacr e of B lack Moor r efug ees by Mauritani an s o l d iers whe n the re fug ees trie d to ree nter Ma u r i t an i a t o r e c l a i m t h e i r

l an d
. Q u i t e t o t h e c o n t r ar y , t h e S t a t e D e p art m e n t2 0 0 3 M a ur ita nia Country Report on Human Rig hts Practices states that many ref ug ees have returne d from Seneg al to M a ur ita nia and have “ re c e ive d the ir or ig ina l home s, so me pr op e rt y , an d all or a po rt ion

of the ir land.” The repor

t also notes that in 2003 “there wer e [only ] t hree re p o rt ed unlawful killings by
se c ur ity fo rc e s. ” As the I J n ote d, if Sa ll’ s wi fe ’s c la im we re tr ue , it wo uld c e rt a inl y have c ome to the attention of the State D epar tment and bee n included in its country repor t. The letter from Sall’s wife is inher ently

implausible, considering the ac tual state of affa irs in Mauritania at this time. The
a uth e nti c ity

of Sall ’s un c le ’s de a th c e rt if ic a te , w hic h w a s se nt w iththe le tte r, is a lso e xtre me ly8

questionable; instead of

descr ibin g t h e wo u n ds which ca used the de ath, it states the g eog raphic al locatio n w h e r e th e b e a ti n g a ll e g e d ly o c c u r r e d
. T h e le tt e r an d d e a th c e rti f ic a te a p p e ar to be an attempt by

Sall “to enhanc e his claims of pe rsec ution.” Se e Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926. Not only did Sall fa il to provide cre dible corr oborating evidenc e, but the ava ilable objective
e vid e nce i s ent ire ly

inc on sis te nt w ithSa ll’ s c la ime d p e rs e c uti on . Wh e n ma kin g a c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n, c ourt s ma

y take int o a c c ount “ the con si st ency of [the a pp lic ant’ s] st a te me nts wi th other e vidence of record (including the repor ts of t he De partment of State on c ountry conditions).” 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( iii ). Sa ll’ s sto ry is no t be lie va ble in l ig ht o f t

he c on dit ion s in

Ma ur ita nia in 1998. The S tate De partment’s 1998 Ma uritania Country

Report on Human Rig hts Practices state s that dur ing thi s time pe ri od , the Ma ur ita nia n g ov e rnme nt wa s ac tiv e ly wo rk ing wi th hum an r ig hts org anizations “ to a ssist re turnee s from Seneg al and Mali.” Approxim ately 40,000 to 65,000 of the 70 ,0 00 re fu g e e s h a d sa fe ly re tur ne d to Ma

ur ita nia by thi s tim e . Mo re ov e r, in 1 99 8 th e re wa s o nly “one know n extrajudicial killi ng b y the sec urity

forc es,” a

nd “[t] he g overnme nt no longe r employ [ed] forc ed exile.” The Ma uritanian g overnme nt “ continued eff orts to e ncoura g e the r eturn of southerne rs who had be en expelled or who ha d fled during1989-91.” These “ U.S. State D epar

tment r eports, ‘which are g ener ally the best source of information on conditions in foreig n nat i o n s ,’ provide c ontext about [Mauritania] so that the fact f inder may assess [Sall’s] cre dibilit y .” See Sterkaj v. G onzales , 439 F. 3 d 2 7 3 , 276 (6th Cir. 2006) (c itation
o m i t t ed ) ( qu o t i n g Mu lla i v . A sh c ro ft , 38 5 F .3 d 63 5, 63 9 (6 th Cir
. 20 04 ))
. I n lig ht of the se re po rt s, Sa l l ’ s s t o r

y
— i f t r

u e

— w o u l d b e an e xtr a o r d i n ar y e xc e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l a t m o s p he re in Mauritania in 1998. I t is e x tremely unlikely that a g overnme nt that is actively participating in the
r e tu r no f B l a c k M o o r

r e f u g e e s w o u l d

s i m u l t an e o u s l y c a

p tu r e , t o rtu r e , an d

e x i l e “ a tl e a s te i g h t y”9

Bla ck Moors, as Sall claims. Neve rtheless, the State D epar tment Report does lend limited support to Sall’s story . The re port notes that in 1998: There wer e a numbe r of unc onfirmed r eports that the Government c onfiscate d the far mland of members of southern ethnic g roups in or near the Seneg al River valley and re distributed it to m ember s of the dominant White Moor ethnic g roup, leaving Southern far

mers landless, f

orcinga number o f t hem into the cities, and impelling so me to f le e the c ountr

y . . . . Th e re we re [al so ] a numbe r o f u nc on fi rm e d r e po rt s that secur ity

forc es phy sically

abused or

detained s o utherne rs in the cour se of c on fi sc a tin g the ir

fa rm land fo r r e dis tr ibutio n to Whit e Mo or s. Thus, althoug h Sall’s story is not entirely

implausible in li g ht of the country repor ts, we must defe r to the substantial evidence indicating that Sall was not a cr edible witness: his testimony reg arding his f arm, his a rre st, a nd his de tention w ere lacking in de tail; he failed to pr ovid e a corroborating witness; his claim t hat t he Mauritanian authoriti es l et hi m keep his identification was inconsistent with the ir repor

ted prac tice; the story

of his uncle’ s death wa s not in his wife’s letter a s he testified it was; and his story was inconsistent w ith the g ener al conditions in Mauritania, as descr ibed in the State Depa

rtment repor

ts. Thus, the BIA’s finding that Sall was not a cr edible witness is supported b y substantial evidence , and no evide nce c ompels us to reac h a contr ary conclusion. S

e e, e.g. , Sterjak , 4 39 F .3 d at 27 6 (up ho ldi ng an adve rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n w he re c ountr y re po rt s d id
no t e nti re ly

ru le ou t th e po ssi bil ity

that a pp lic ant’ s st or

y wa s tr ue , b ut t he re po rt s w e re ult imate ly inconsistent with and thus undermined the a pplicant’s cla im). Even if we wer e to find Sall cre dible, we would ne verthe less co n cl ude that substantial evidenc e supports the B I A’s alter native holding that ch a

ng ed cir cumstance s in Mauritania pre vented Sall from proving a we ll-founded f ear of per secution. To qualify as a r efug ee, Sall must prove that he is unwilling to return to Mauritania “bec ause of perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of persec ution
on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political10

opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a )(42) (A). An asylum a pplication must be denied, howeve r, whe re the pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e e sta

bl ish e s th a t “ [t]he re ha s b e e n a fu nd a me nta l c ha

ng e in ci rc u m s tance s such that the applica nt no longe r has a

well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution in the applicant’ s country

of nationality .” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (1)( i)(A) . The 2003 Stat e De partment Report states that many

of the f o rm er re fu g ees ha

ve re turned to Maur itania, that the Maur itanian g overnme nt is cooperating with humanitar ian g roups to assi s t returning r efug ees, a nd that the g ov e rnme nt h a s r e tur

ne d p ro pe rt

y to many of

the re fu g e e s. Th e re fo re , s ub sta nti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the B I A’s dete rmination that chang ed circumstance s bar Sall’s application for asylum. See, e .g. , Mullai , 3 85 F .3d at 639 ( up ho ldi ngB I A’ s d e te rm inatio n th a t e ve n if a pp lic ant f

a c e d p a st perse cution, chang ed countr y conditions evidence d in the State Depa rtmen t re p o rts neg ated the applican t ’s claim of w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution because she could not show that the

c urre nt g overnme nt would targ et her for pe rsec ution). We a lso no te that th e B I A p ro pe rl y de nie d Sa ll’ s r e qu e st f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. B e c a us e the “ c le ar p ro ba

bil ity” sta nd ard requi red f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l is “ mor e str ing e nt” than that re quired for

asylum, Daneshv ar , 3 55 F .3 d at 62 5, Sa ll’ s w ith ho ldi ngof re mov al cla im
ne c e ssa ri ly fa ils on the same g ro un ds a s h is a sylum c la im. III . For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY Sall’s petition for revie w.