1 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: 06a0837n.06 F iled: Novem ber 15, 2006 Case No. 05- 3679 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT BA HA RE AB LA HA D O DI SHO, P etitioner , v. AL BER TO G ON Z AL ES, A tt or ne y 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

BEF OR E: BA TC HELD ER , G IBBO NS, and C OOK , C ir c uitJudg e s. A LI C E M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioner-appe llant, Ba hare Ablahad O disho (“O disho”), a native and citizen of I raq, appea ls a final order of remova l by the B oard of

I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A” or

“B oard” ). The BIA aff

irmed, without opinion, the I mmigration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) decision deny

ing O disho’s reque st for asy lum, wit h h o l d i n g of re moval, and prote ction under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . Odisho timely filed her petition for re view. I. BACKG ROUND Odisho, a 39 y ear

old, Christi an Chaldea

n woman fr om northern I ra q , enter ed the United States illega lly

near San Dieg o, California, on or about Marc h 4, 2002. On M arc h 7, 2002, the I NS issued Odisho a Notice to Appear , char g ing he r with remova bility under I NA § 212(a )(7) (A)( i)(I ),2

8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7) (A)( i)(I ), as a n alien not in possession of valid entry documents. After an initial hear ing in San Die g o, Odisho filed a motion to chang e venue to Detroit, Michig an. She conc eded

remova bility and applied for asylum, withholding of remova l, a nd CAT protec tion. The I J g rante d O d i s h o ’ s c h a n g e o f v e n u e m o t i o n , an d t h e c a s e p r o c e e d e d

i nD e t r o i t
. O nJ an u ar

y 9 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e IJ de nie d O dis ho ’s a

pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum

and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. At her r emoval hea

ring , Odisho testifie d t h at i n the 1970s the Kurds a ccuse d her native village of Kwa

mi of cooperating with Saddam Hussein’s r eg ime, and that Saddam Husse in acc used the vil la g e of

a idi ngthe Kurd s. Od ish o state d that Hu sse in a tta c ke d Kw a mi, and sh e and he r f a mil y fl e d to B a g hd a d. She te sti fi e d tha t her fa the r wa s har a sse d by me mbe rs of Hu sse in’ s B a ’a th P a rt y wh ile the fa

mil y liv e d in B a g hd a d, and

that w hil e liv ingthe re in the e arl y 19 90 s, sh e wa s una ble to ob ta in w or

k f or mor e tha n a y e ar be c a

us e sh e wa s not a mem

be r of the B a ’ath Par

ty . O dis ho a lso te sti fi e d that a ft e r ob ta ini ng wo rk a s a se a mst re ss in B a g hd a d, sh e wa s pe rs e cut ed b y “Muslim radic als” a

nd ultimately

fired. On Octobe r 14, 1996, the B a’ath Party summoned Odisho to its office s wher e she w as then de ta ine d f or 12 da y s w hil e of

fi c ia ls i nte rr og a te d h e r 4 tim e s a s the y inv e sti g a te d c la ims by “ Mu sli m radic als” that she had curse d the Ba ’ath Party

. Odisho claimed that during the interrog ations she was “sexually fondled” and beaten on her back, shoulde rs, and f

eet. He r inter ro gators re lease d her on October 26, 1996, afte r she sig ned an a ffidavit pledg ing he r loy alty to the reg ime and promising that she would not coope rate with or assist any anti-g overnme nt org anization. After her detention, Odisho lost her job when the B a’athists pressured her fac tory boss to fire her. She did not find another job but made plans to marry Yousef H ermis. Mr. He rmis was involved with the Assy

rian De mocratic Movement, or “ ADM par ty ,” outlawe d by

Hussein. Odisho testified3

that Her mis and one of his fr iends wer e ar rested on Aug ust 27, 1997, and he disappe are d. She stated that afte r her fianc e’s disappea ranc e, she fea

red that she would be e x ecute d beca use she ha d signe d the loy alty

ag ree ment and wa s eng ag ed to an a rre sted member of

an anti-g overnme nt pa

rty
. Odisho fled B ag hdad on September 1, 1997. Odisho then moved to and lived in sever al countries as an illega l alien over the next several y ear s. She was smug g led into Turkey , wher e she stay ed for a month, befor e moving t o Gre ece . W h i l e i nG r e e c e , O d i s h o w o r k e d an d a p p l i e d f o r a s yl u m i n C an a d a t h r o u g h t h e C an a d i ane mb a s s y, but her a pplication was de nied. She also cla imed that she tried to apply for “status in the United States” throug h an unidentified Americ an org anization in Greec e, but that the org anization indicated that it required aff

idavits e stablishing her relationship wit h someone in the United States, a nd that her ha ving a sister living in the States was insufficient. Odisho rema ined in G ree ce illega lly for 4 y ear s befor e pay

ing $7500 to be smugg led into Mex ico on a f alse Da nish passport. Her sister and

a un t su pp lie d th e smu g g le rs ’ f

e e . O nc e in M e xico , O dis ho wa s arr e ste d a nd pla c e d in a camp i n Tijuana a fter the September 11, 2001 attacks. Upon release, she crosse d the borde r and e ntere d the United States in Marc h 2002. She was detained in California a nd her r emoval proc eeding s ensued. II. THE I M M IG RA TIO N J UD G E’ S OP IN ION The Immigration J udg e looked to th e “ th r eshhold deter

mination reg arding[t he] respondent’s

c re dib ili ty ” a nd

no te d th a t “ [s]ome tim e s a re sp on de nt c an o ff

e r o nly the ir te sti mony as th e so le evidenc e in support of t h e cl ai m . This can be sufficie nt where the testimony is believable, consistent, AND sufficiently detailed in light of g ener al conditi ons in the home countr y to provide

a p l a u s i b l e a n d c o h e r e n t a c c o u n t o f t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c l a i m e d f

e ar . ” ( e mp h a s i s i no r i g i n a l )

. T h e IJ went on to observe that the only evidenc e corroborating the details of Odisho’s c laims of perse cution4

is a le tte r purp or

te dly fr om h e r b ro the r w ho no w r e sid e s in To ro nto , Ca

na da . T hat le tte r a

pp e a rs to have be e n ba se d on inf

or ma tio n that Od ish o pr ov ide d to its a uth or , and the I J g a ve it l itt le we ig ht. The I J also discuss e d

O d is h o ’ s a

p p li c a ti o n and the inconsistenc ies betwe en her testimony

and her a pplication. First, the I J noted that althoug h Odisho testified to the Hussein re g ime’s har assing her f amily and ac cusing them of anti-g overnme nt activities as ea rly as the 1970s, she did not i nclude

any of that in fo rm a tio n in

he r a sylum

a pp lic a tio n. Se c on d, the I J wa s “ tr ou ble d” by the re la tiv e ly incomplete set of r ecor ds and docume nts that Odisho provided to corr oborate her story . Third, the I J considere d Odisho’s extended stay in Gree ce, a nd the fa ct that she c ould not provide any evidenc e of her stay , the Danish pa ssport she used to leave Gr eec e, or any aff idavit from her

sister still l iving the re . T he I J sug g e ste d th a t if Od ish o c ou ld p ro vid e the fr a ud ule nt D anis h p a ssp or

t or an a ff ida vit from her sister, there could be at least an infe renc e to s u pport her c laim of lack of status in that country . F o u rth , th e I J n o te d th a t th e f e ar o f p e r s e c u ti o n O d is h o in it ia ll y arti c u late d in he r application is based on tr eatment by the forme r g overnme nt, but that she now claims that she fe ars perse cution by

“Muslim ex tremists and fundame ntalists.” The I J conclude d that Odisho h ad not submitt ed cr edible and obje ctive evide nce of such perse cution so as to establish a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution in I raq. Ul tim a te ly , th e I J hel d th a t Od ish o’ s sin g le c la im o f d e te nti on did no t r ise to t

he le ve l of

pa st perse cution or support a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe r s e c ution under the ne w circ umstances in Iraq. Ha vin g fa ile d to e sta

bli sha we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on , Odi sh o als o fa ile d to e sta bli sh

e lig ibi lity un de r t he mor e str ing e nt s tand ard s f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. III . A NA LY SIS5

Be cause the B I A adopted the I J ’s deter mination without opi nion, we re view the I J ’s opinion as the final age n cy d ec i s i o n. De nk o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 728 ( 6th Cir. 2003). To reve rse the de c isi on , w e mus t f

ind th at the e vid e nc e no t on ly su pp or ts a c on tr ary c on c lus ion , b ut c omp e ls i t. Kla witt e r v . I

NS , 970 F. 2d 149, 152 ( 6th Cir. 1992). “The pe t i t i oner must demonstrate ‘that the

e vid e nc e pr e se nte d wa s so com pe lli ng that no re a so na

ble fa c tf ind e r co uld fa il to fin d th e re qu isi te perse cution or fe ar of

perse cution.’” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ou da v . I NS , 324 F.3d 445, 451 ( 6th Cir. 2003)). This sta ndard has been c odified by regulations that

a llo w u s to re ve rs e the B I A on ly if “ 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 the c on tr ary .” 8 U .S. C. 1 25 2( b) (4 )( B ). Un de r t his de fe re nti a l st and ard

of re vie w, we mus t up ho ld the I J ’s dec ision if it is “‘suppor ted by rea sonable, subst antial, and probative evidence on the re cord considere d as a w hole,’” Kol iad a v . I NS , 2 5 9 F. 3 d

4 8 2 , 4 8 6 ( 6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)) , and we are not entitled to rever se “simply beca use [we

are ] convinc ed that [we] would have decide d the case differ ently .” Ad hiy ap pa v . I NS , 58 F.3d 261, 265 (6th Cir.1995) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Be cause substantial evidence supports the I J ’s deter mination and the evidenc e does not

c omp e l th e re a so na

ble fa c tf ind e r t o c on c lud e oth e rw ise , w e AF F I RM. A. CRED IBI LITYAN D P AST P ER SEC UT ION Odisho argues that the I J abused her discr etion in denying O disho’s applications for a sy lum and withholding of

remova l. Odisho claims that she has suf fer ed past pe rsec ution on account of her relig ion and her opinions, a nd that there is a rea sonable possibili ty that she will suffer future ha rm i f s h e i s re m o ved to I raq. She sug g ests that the I J failed to c onsider the 2001 a nd 2002 Country Reports and to consider

all of t he evidence and t estimony in the context of the “composite picture ”6

that O dis ho pa int e d. F ur

the rm or e , O dis ho c on te nd s tha t bec a us e he r t e sti mony

wa s “ no t f

ound to b e i n c r e d i b l e , ” t h e IJ s h o u l d h a v e g r an t e d

h e r a p p l i c a t i o nf

o r a s yl u m b a s e d

u p o nh e r t e s t i m o n y. I n f a c t, ho wev er, the I J’s o pin ion str on g ly imp lie s th a t O dis ho did no t pr ov ide c re dib le evidenc e to support her ap p l i ca t ion. I n discussing the “thre shold determination regarding

re sp on de nt’ s c re dib ili ty ,” (e mphasis added) the I J points to t he little weig ht to be g iven t o the letter from Odisho’ s brother, the multipl e inconsistencie s betwee n her te stimony and her asylum application, the incomplete rec ord evide nce pr ovided re lating to the Ca nadian a pplication, the lack of e vid e nti ary

su pp or t c omi ngfr om her si st er an d mo the r w ho purp or te dly pa id o ve r $ 70 00 to smugg le her

into the United States, and the missing D anish passport. Ea ch of the se inconsistencie s

and the la c k o f c re dib le e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at O dis ho ’s he ari ngwe re dis c us se d in re la tio n to Odisho’s cre dibilit y

deter mination. I t is therefor e misleading to argue that Odisho was found to have t e s t i f i e d c r e d i b l y. To the e xten t th a t th e I J con sid e re d O dis ho ’s te sti mony no t c re dib le , w e re vie w a dv e rs e
cre dibilit y

deter minations under the substantial evidenc e test, Y u v. As hc ro

ft , 36 4 F .3 d 70 0, 70 3 ( 6th Cir. 2004), which a llows for re versa l only if “the e vidence prese nted by [t he petitioner] was such that

a re asonable fac tfinder would ha ve to c onclude that the requisite fea r of perse cution exis ted.” El ias

Zacarias , 50 2 U. S. a t 48 1. De sp ite thi s h ig hly de fe re nti a l st and ard

of re vie w, an “ a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination ‘must be base d on issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt’s claim.’” Shkabari v. Gonzales , 4 2 7 F

. 3 d

3 2 4 , 3 2 9 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 )

. H e r e , t h e i s s u e s u n d e r l y i n g t h e I J’ s c r e d i b i lit y d e t e r m i n a t i o nc o n c e r

nt h e l a c k o f e v i d e n c e an d t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s r e g ar d i n g O d i s h o ’ s e n t i r e s t o r y. The I J doubts the reliability of Odisho’s testimony

in light of it s inconsistencies and the conspicuous7

a bs e nc e of any c or ro bo ratin g e vid e nc e that w ou ld lik e ly be a va ila ble if Od ish o’ s sto ry wa s tr uth fu l. The e vidence prese nted does not compe l a contra ry conclusion. Fur thermore , Odisho’s brief

misrepre sents the I J ’s finding as to w hether Odisho’s treatment

c on sti tut e d p a st pe rs e c uti on . Sh e argue s in c or re c tly that th e I J “ne ve r h e ld a s to wh e the r s uc h a bu se constitutes persec ution,” and “[n]owhere does the I J decide whether what . . . Odisho endure d was p e r s e c u t i o n , m i s tr e a t m e n tn o tr i s i n g t o p e r s e c u t i o n , m i s f o rtu n e , o r j u s tb a d l u c k

. ” O nt h e c o n t r a r

y, howeve r, af

ter re viewing the basis for O disho’s claim, the I J specific ally deter mined that it “cannot f i n d t h a tt h e r e s p o n d e n th a s , b a s e d u p o n h e rs i n g l e c l a i m o f d e t e n t i o nf

o r a b r i e f p e r i o d b y a g overnme nt which no longe r exis ts, c redibly established either

past perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution given the chang ed cir cumstance s.” F urthermor e, the I J held that “[t] here is certa inly

no evidenc e to e stablish that the respondent’ s perse cution was so seve re a s that experience d by

the re spondent in Matter of Chen , th a t th e re is a re a so n th a t th e re sp on de nt s ho uld be g rante d relief in this country .” Thus, it is simply not acc urate to say

that the I J never

ruled on the question of past per secution. Rather, the I J corr ectly

held that Odisho’s single claim of detention, the sexual touching, a nd the beating on the f

eet a nd shoulders, does not rise to the level of past perse cution. Persec ution does

no t in c lud e a ll ty

pe s of su ff

e ri ng and “ mus t ri se a

bo ve un ple a sa ntn e ss, ha ra ssm e nt, and

e ve n b a sic suffe ring .” Ne lso n v . I

NS , 232 F.3d 258, 263 (1st Ci r. 2000). B eca use neither

the supporting evidenc e nor O disho’s t es t i m o ny compel the c onclusion that her tre atment at the ha nds of the Ba ’athists was more than basic suf fer ing, w e af

firm the I J ’s dec ision. B. F EA R O F F UT URE P ER SEC UT ION8

Odisho also argues that the I J err ed in f inding that Odisho failed to e stablish a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. As the I J noted, in light of the re ce n t o v erthrow of Saddam Husse in’s Ba ’athist reg ime, her or igina l “per secutors,” Odisho “now c laims that she fe ar s perse cution by Muslim ex tremists and fundamentalists.” Odisho relies on television and news acc ounts reporting that the B a’ath Party

has re org anized into small cells and con t i n u es to terr orize the country . She claims that she wa s known to local B a’ath Party members in Iraq a nd she fe ars r etaliation. Odisho argues t hat s he is known i n her neig hborhood and by her f riends and r elatives who w ill “all betray he r as an A ssy

ri an/C ha lde an Ch ri sti an” if sh e re tur

ns . Sh e c on te nd s th a t th e I J “c a va lie rl y dis mis se d” thi s f

e ar a nd that the fe ar s ho uld

be “ a dju dic a te d o n r e a l e vid e nc e .” I n f a c t, h ow e ve r, in looking f or re al evidenc e to support Odisho’s cla im, the I J fo u nd that Odisho “has not submitted

cre dible and objec tive evidenc e of suc h persecu tion” to establish a well-f ounded fe ar. Rathe r, Odisho’s “e vidence ” consisted of g ener alized media ac counts conve y ing a sense of turmoil and dang er in Iraq. We have held that r andom dang er f ace d by the population as a wh o l e d oes not est ablish asylum eligibility

. Se e Da ne sh v ar v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 5 F

. 3 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 4

- 2 5 ( 6 th Ci r . 2004). F ur the rm or e , O dis ho “ c ann ot re ly on sp e c ulativ e c on c lus ion s or me re a sse rt ion s o f f e ar o f p os sib le perse cution, but instead must offer rea sonably

specific information showing a re al threat of individual persec ution . . .

. The fe are d perse cution must relate to the a lien individually , not to the population ge nera lly .” Ha rc he nk o v . I NS , 379 F.3d 405, 410 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Odisho profe rre d no specific information, or e vidence of individual perse cution. Moreove r, g iven the U.S.-led ove rthrow of I raq’ s d i ct ator, a

nd despite the g ener al state of vio le nc e and

un re st in I ra q, the I J r ig htl y no te d th a t O dis ho ha s n ot e sta bli sh e d th a t it

wa s mo re lik e ly tha n n ot t hat sh e wo uld be tor

tur e d or p e rs e c ute d b y

the I ra qi g ov e rnme nt, or

by a g ro up in w ho se9

prac tices of torture the g overnme nt acquiesc es. As the I J found, there is no evidence in these re cords to suppor t a claim that the g roup responsible for enfor cing the law in I raq a cquiesc es in ac tions by

any ra dic a l Mu sli m, f

un dame nta lis t g ro up . I nd e e d, the c on tr ary wo uld se e m to be the c a se . T hu s, Odisho has fa iled to establish a fear of future perse cution, and substantial evidenc e supports the I J ’s de te rm inatio n to that e ff

e c t. CO NC LU SION Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the judg ment of the B I A.