The Honor able Micha el H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Souther n 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 File Na me: 10a0463n.06 No. 09-3448 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT AB DOULAYE M. SY, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt.

______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON REVI EW FROM THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

O P I N I O N

Before: G ILMAN and WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and WAT SON , District Judge. * HELE NE N. WHITE , Circuit Judge. Petitioner Abdoulay e Sy seeks r eview of

a B oard of I mmigration Appeals (BI A) order dism issing his appea l from the Immigration J udg e (I J ) dec ision denyin g h is c la im s f

o r a s y lum an d w it

h h o ld in g o f r e mo v a l p u r s u an t to th e I mm ig r a ti on and Nationality

Act, and f

or re lief pursuant to the Unit ed Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT). We DENY Sy ’s petition for re view. I. A. Sy’ s A c c ount Sy is a native a

nd citizen of Mauritania a nd identifies hims elf a s belong ing to the B lack F ula ni r a c e /e thn ic g ro up . Sy

ha s a wi fe and fo ur c hil dr e n, wh o n owliv e in S e ne g a l.B or n i n 19 62 , S y di d n ot g o to sc ho ol, and be c a me a

fa rm e r. (A .R. 48 -4 9. ) H e and his family lived in a mud house on his modest farm. (A .R. 49.) Sy testified that his pare nts had previously

had problems with the authoriti es i n Mauritania, who wer e W hite Ara bs (White Moors), and that the same authorities cause d problems for him. Specifica lly , in 1989, a g roup of soldiers a nd customs officials with we apons ca me to his farm at night and sa id the y would seize his family ’s land be c a us e the fa mil y wa s “ no t f

ro m the re ,” de sp ite the fa c t th a t Sy ’s fa rm wa s p a sse d d ow n f

ro m hi s g ra nd fathe r. (A .R. 50 -5 3. ) Th e so ldi e rs kil le d o ne of the fa mil y ’s lambs and

be a t Sy wi th w hip s, le a vin g a sc ar o n h is h and . Wh e n ask e d at th e re mov a l he ari ng ho w o ft e n th e a

uth or iti e s w ou ld come to his house, Sy

responde d that they

came so o ft en h e co u l d n ot say how many

times sp e c if ic a lly . ( A. R. 5 3. ) S y

a lso te sti fi e d th a t he wa s arr e ste d in 19 89 and he ld f or thr e e da

y s. (A .R. 57.) Sy descr ibed the next time that he had problems as occur ring on Aug ust 7, 2001, when many individuals, some in uniform, some in civilian clothes, came to his home at nig ht. (A.R. 54.) The individuals tol d Sy

that he did not belong in Mauritania and beat him up, along with his family . He and his family

wer e take n to the river a long w ith other families and put in small boats to cross the border to Seneg al. (A.R. 55.) Sy and his family

crosse d in differ ent boats, but wer e tog ether in the Diatar Reg uee Camp in Seneg al (A.R. 56, 427.) Sy te sti fi e d th a t he sta

y e d in Se ne g a l fo r on ly 13 da y s. (A .R. 58 .) Sy ’s sis te r g a ve him so me jewelr y , with which he wa s able to obtain passa g e to t he United States. (A.R. 58-59.) Aman named Pa pe Joe D iop br ou g ht S y

on a fl ig ht t o N e w Y or

k. (A .R. 59 .) Di op g a ve Sy a pass po rt (w ith

someone e lse’s name , but Sy ’s picture ) to use and D iop w as the one who spoke with immigration officia ls in New York. ( A.R. 60-61.) Af ter Diop a nd Sy enter ed the c ountry , Diop took Sy ’s planeticket and pa ssport back. (A.R. 61.) Sy testified that he a

rrived in the U nited States on Aug ust 20, 2001. (A.R. 61.) Sy also testified that sometime af ter he had arr ived in the United States, he r ece ived a police summons that was sent to him by someone who had lived in the same are a as he had in Mauritania

. (A.R. 61-62.) T he summons is dated Aug ust 14, 2001, and order s Sy to r eport to the police station

c on c e rn inga

pe rs on a l matte r. (A. R. 1 97 -9 8. ) T he ind ivi du a l w ho se nt h im the su mmo ns tol d Sy that “they” we re a sking w here he wa s and the individual told them that he did not know. (A.R. 63.) Sy testified that he is af

raid that if he g oes bac k to Mauritania, he will be killed. (A.R. 63.) B. Im m igration P roce edings I n J anuar y 2002, Sy filed an application for asy lum and withhol ding of remova l. (A.R. 428- 36.) Th e ap p l i ca t i on was re fer red to a n I J . Sy was ser ved with a Notice to Appear on April 28, 2004, char g ing him with re movability under 8 U .S.C. § 1227(a)(1) (A), a s an immigra nt who, at the tim e of a dmi ssi on , d id n ot p os se ss a va lid e ntr y do c ume nt. (A .R. 46 4. ) Sy c on c e de d r e mov a

bil ity and filed an amended application for asy lum, withholding of removal, and pr otection under the CAT in November

2007. (A.R. 137, 417-26.) I n Dec ember

2007, the I J held a hear ing on Sy ’s remova l pr ocee dings. After the hea ring , the I J is su e d an or a l de c isi on

de nyingSy ’s a

pp lic a tio n a

nd or de ri nghim

re mov e d to Ma

ur ita nia . ( A. R. 116-24.) The I J found Sy ’s testimony not cre dible, and also c oncluded that Sy had not prove d that he filed his asy

lum application withing one y ear of the date t hat he enter ed the country

. On Marc h 27, 2009, the BIA issued a brief opinion a nd order dismiss ing Sy ’s appea l. T h e B I A d ecision addre ssed only

the I J ’s cr edibility

conclusion and c oncluded tha t the I J had not committed clea r

err or. Sy timely soug ht reviewin this court. II.A. Le ga l St anda r ds

“Where the B I A re views the immigr ation judge ’s dec ision and issues a s eparate opinion, rathe r than summarily

aff irming the immigration judge’ s decision, we r eview the BIA’s dec ision as t h e fi nal ag ency

deter mination. To the ext ent that the B I A adopted the immigration judge’ s

rea soning, howeve r, we also revie w the immigr ation judge ’s dec ision.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 42 9, 43 5 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 9) (i nte rn a l c itatio n omit te d)

. Qu e sti on s of l aw a re re vie we d d e no vo , w hil e fac tual fin d i n g s (including cre dibilit y deter minations) are revie wed f or substantial evidenc e. Id .; Hassan v. Gonzales , 403 F.3d 429, 434 (6th Cir. 2005). Under a substantial-e vidence standard, fac tual finding s are to be treated as “ conclusive unle s s any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” Hassan , 403 F.3d at 434. Under the I NA, asylum c an be g rante d to an alien who qua lifies as a “ ref ug ee,” define d as someone “ who is unable or unw illing to return to, an d is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herse lf of the pr otection of, [his or her home c ountry ] because of perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of per secution on ac count of ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or po lit ic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 11 01 (a )(42)(A ). An a pp lic ant i s r e qu ir e d to sh owthr e e thi ng s to demonstrate a

well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution: (1) that he has a f

ear of persecution i n his home country on acc ount of ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a p ar t i cu l ar social g roup, or political opinion; (2) that the re is a re a so na ble po ssi bil ity

of su ff e ri ngsu c h p e rs e c uti on

if he we re to r e tur

n to that c ountr

y ; and (3 ) t hat he is u

na ble or un wi lli ng to re tur

n to that c ountr

y be c a us e of such f ear . Sin gh v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 8 F. 3 d

3 9 6 , 4 0 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004)). To show a “re asonab l e p o s s i b ility ” of pe rsec ution, the applicant nee d not prove perse cution by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 431(1987) ( “One can c erta inly have a well-founde d fea

r of an event happening when there is l ess than a 50% c hance of the oc curr ence taking place .”). Simi lar to asy

lum, eligibility

for with h o l d i n g of re moval is based on a f ear of per secution beca use of one ’s ra ce, r el i gi o n , nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion. Se e Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d at 401. I n contra st to asy lum, which is a m at t er o f t he Attor ne y Ge ne ra l’ s d isc re tio n, if the a pp lic ant me e ts the re qu ir e me nts fo r w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l, relief is mandatory

. Id. Ho we ve r, in o rd e r t o q ua lif y fo r w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l, t

he a pp lic ant m

us t

me e t a hig he r sta

nd ard —a “ c le ar pr ob a

bil ity ,” or mor e lik e ly

tha n n ot, that he wo uld

be su bje c t to perse cution in the proposed c ountry of re moval. Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 4 53 F .3 d 7 43 , 7 49 (6 th Cir . 2 00 6) ; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). I n order to e stablish a CAT claim, an applica nt must show that it is more likely than not that he would be tor

tured if r emoved to the p ro p o s ed country of re moval. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2). Tortu r e is “ ane xtr e me f

o r m o f c r u e l a n d inh u ma ntr e a tm e n t. ” 8 C. F

. R. § 1 2 0 8

. 1 8 ( a ) ( 2 ).

“ Spe c i f i c a l l y , i t i s ‘ an y a c t b y w h i c h s e v e r e p a i n o r s u f f e r i n g , w h e t h e r p h y s i c a l o r m e nta l, i s intentionally

inflicted’ to extract information, puni sh, intimi date, coerc e, or otherwise discr iminate, ‘whe n such pain or suf

fer ing is inflicted by

or at t h e instigation of or with the consent or acquie scenc e of a public officia l or other pe rson ac ting in an of ficial c apac ity .’” Haider v. H older , 595 F.3d 276, 289 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (1)) . An applica nt need not show that the torture is ba sed on one of the five pr otected g rounds. See A lmuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 751. B. Ana lys is 1. BIA Dec ision Th e B I A c on c lud e d a s f

oll ow s:We find no clea r error in the I mmigration J udg e’s a dverse cre dibilit y finding . I n that reg ard, the I mmigrat i o n J udg e identified substantial discr epanc ies within the re sp on de nt’ s te sti mony

a t hi s in div idu a l he ari ng and be tw e e n h is t e sti mony

a t hi s individual hearing and his a pplication for asylum a

nd withholding of r emoval (F orm I -589) whic h are indeed pr esent in the re cord of proce eding . For example, reg arding incidents that occ urre d in 2001, the responde nt omitted any testimony

reg ardingany detention on direc t examination. On cross examination, he ex plicitly stated that the only time he was e ver de tained wa s in 1989, and it l as t ed for 3 da y s. Then, he testified t hat he was de tained in 2001 for a pproxi mately

2 day s, but he later sa id he was no t detained in 2001. How ever , he wr ote in his application for a sy lum and wit h h o l d i n g o f removal (F orm I -589) that he was de tained in Aug ust 2001. The responde nt failed to ade quately and suff iciently dispute these discre pan ci es either be fo re the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e or on a pp e a l. (interna l citations omit ted). Among the ot her “substantial discrepa ncies” that the B I A re fer ence d, the I J cited the f act that Sy ’s first asy

lum application stated that he w as ar rested a nd detained in 1989, 1990, and 1999, but that Sy did not testify to be ing arr ested or detained in 1990 or 1999 at the hea

ring . The I J also found Sy ’s te sti mo ny abo ut “th e 19 89 inc ide nt” to b e inc on sis te nt. (A .R. 12 1. ) S y te sti fi e d o n c ro ssexamination that he went to the hospital a fter the 1989 beating

. (A.R. 73.) But Sy also testified that he wa s ta ke n to ja il i mme diate ly

a ft e r t he 19 89 arr e st. (A .R. 74 .) Th e I J fou nd the se state me nts to

c on fl ic t. (A .R. 12 1) ; see also A. R. 74 (“ Wel l sir , ho w c ou ld y ou g o to the ho sp ita l the ne xt day if y ou wer e also take n to a prison? ”). The I J also found it implausible that the Mauritanian a uthorities would evict Sy

from the county , then only seven da y s later issue a

summons directing him to report to a Mauritania

n police station. (A.R. 122.) The I J noted that Sy h ad p ro duced no c orrobor ating evidenc e about the summons, including how he g ot it, why the pol ice gave it to Sy ’s friend to send,

e tc . ( A

. R

. 1 2 2

. ) F i n a l l y t h e I J n o t e d

t h e l a c k o f an y s t a t e m e n t s f

r o m S y ’ s w i f

e an d s i s t e r , wi th whom he is in contac t, to corrobor ate a ny aspec t of his acc ount. (A.R. 122.)I t is un fo rt un a te that on e of

the ba se s f

or the B I A d e c isi on

wa s th e “ fa c t” that Sy

state d in 2 his a sylum

a pp li cat io n th at he w a s d e ta ine d in Au g us t 20 01 , b ut t e sti fi e d to the c on tr ary a t hi s he ari ng . B oth

the I J and

c ro ss- e xami nin g c ouns e l pr e sse d Sy to expl a in the dif

fe re nc e be tw e e n h is testimony at the hea

ring (omitting any

mention of a 2001 a

rre st) and his asylum application. The statement in Sy ’s application at issue is his response to the question, “Do you fea r har m or mis tr e a tme nt i f you

re tur n to y our h ome c ountr

y ? ” He ans we re d “ Ia m a fr a id t hat if Ire tur n to Mauritania, I

will ag ain be de tained, imprisoned, beaten, tortured, or even killed. W

hen I was forced to leave the country in A ugust 2001, I had been de tained, imprisoned[,] and brutally mistreated and my land had bee n stolen. I have since l ear ned that police continued to look for me a fter I left and that Iwas orde red to a

ppear at the police station.” A.R. 421 (emphasis adde d). I nterpre ting those w ords to mean that those t h i n gs occur red only in Aug ust 2001 is an unnece ssarily

narr ow re ading . Be cause Sy left Mauritania for good in Aug ust 2001, an alter native interpre tation of the statement is that Sy is list ing the various har dships that he had ex p erie nced duri ngthe e nti re tim e that he liv e d th e re . U nd e rs tand ingSy ’s a c c ount t o r e fe r m or e br oa dly to a ll of the diff

icu l t i es h e experience d while in Mauritania makes sense , particula rly in light of the question posed – t o show his fea r of ha rm or mistreatment Sy

would have e very

rea son to refe renc e all of the ba d things that happene d to him rathe r than just the bad things that ha ppened to him in the final instance

. I t is wo rt h p oin tin g ou t th a t th is ( po or ) r e a so n f or c on c lud ing t hat S y was no t c re dib le is distinct from the (leg itimate) rea son, descr ibed l ater in this opini on, that Sy ’s testimony on the stand a bo ut t he a lle g e d 2 00 1 a

rr e st w a s int e rn all

yinconsistent. Al tho ug h at le a st o ne of the a g e nc y c on c lus ion s is pr ob le ma tic , se ve ra l oth e rs are no t. Thus , 2

we cannot conclude that any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to find that Sy is credible. See Singh , 398 F.3d at 401. Sy ’s testimony

reg ardinga 2001 ar

rest was deeply inconsistent. On cr oss-examination, he first denied be ing imprisoned any t i me other tha n in 1989 (A.R. 76). He then stated that he was imp ri so ne d in 2001 (A .R. 76 ), on ly to te sti fy imm e diate ly the re a ft e r that he wa s not impr iso ne d in 20 01 (A .R. 77 ). He a lso of fe re d th e g e ne ra l di sc la ime r t hat he so me tim e s f

or g ot w hat ha

pp e ne d to him in Mauritania bec ause of the problems he w ent throug h there . (A.R. 76.) Fur ther, de spite the claim in Sy ’s first asylum a pplication that he was a

rre sted and de tained in 1 98 9, 19 90 , a

nd 19 99 , Sy did no t te sti fy

on dir e c t e xami natio n to be ingarr e ste d o r detain e d in 1 9 9 0 o r 1999 at the hearing . Sy compounded this omission on cross-examination by beingc on sis te ntl y no n- re sp on siv e to t

he qu e sti on wh e the r he wa s eve r t a ke n to pr iso n o n a ny oth e r d a te besides 1989 and possibly 2001. (A.R. 77-79.) Fin ally , th e I J’s und e rs tand ingthat Sy wa s in c on sis te nt i n te sti fy inga bo ut t he inc ide nts in 19 89 is l e g iti ma te , if so me wh a t le ss str on g . Th e I J se e me d to un de rs tand Sy ’s te sti mony on c ro ssexamination to be that he both went to ja il a nd went to the hospital immediate ly afte r the same event in 1989. This conclusion nece ssarily depends upon the understanding that only one sig nificant e vent

oc c ur re d – “ the 19 89 inc ide nt, ” a s the I J p ut it. (A .R. 12 1. ) B ut Sy c lari fi e d th a t th e da y he we nt t o the hospital with a fing er injury afte r being beaten by authorities and the day he we nt to prison were

“ d i f f e r e n tt i m e [ s ]

. ” ( A

. R

. 7 5

. ) A l t h o u g h t h e IJ c l e ar l y r e j e c t e d t h i s e x p l an a t i o n , h e d i d n o ts ay w h y, and the e x planation d i d not expl icitly conflict with Sy ’s other te stimony . Stil l, Sy ’s testimony on this subject also su

pp or ts the I J ’s conc lusion that he was not cre dible. Sy ’s explanation that there

we re tw o s e pa

rate e ve nts in 1 98 9 d id n ot c ome ou t un til he wa s c on fr on te d w ithpo te nti a lly conflicting information on cr oss-examinati o n . T h e late-br eakingand re actionar y nature of Sy ’s t e s t i m o n y o nt h i s c o r e s u

b j e c tc o u l d w e l l h a v e d a m a g e d

S y’ s c r e d i b i l i t y. I n light of the se inconsistencie s, it was rea sonable for the I J to look to corroborating e vidence in evaluatingwhether

Sy had met his burden of

proof. Se e Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004) (a cknowledg ing that an applicant’s cr edible testimony without corrobor ation may be suff icient to sustain the burden of proof, but “w here it is reasona b l e t o ex pect c orrobor ating evidenc e . . . [t] he abse nce of such cor roborating e vidence can le ad to a finding t hat an applicant has fa ile d to me e t [hi s] burd e n o f p ro of ” ); Pi lic a v . A sh c ro

ft , 388 F.3d 941, 954 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (holding t h a tw h e r e ana

p p l i c an t ’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s i n c o n s i s t e n t , a f a c tf i n d e r c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y f i n d t e s t i m o n y,We note that Sy did produce a copy of t he sum mons document, althoug h he did not provide 3 a c l e ar a c c o u n to f

i t s d e l i v e r

y. “abse nt corrobor ation,” wa s insufficient). Sy offe red little to no corr oboration, despite the fa ct that 3 he testified to still having c ontact with his wife a nd sister. Sy argues that the inconsistencies identified by the I J and the B I A do not g o to the hear t of his claim. To the contra

ry , Sy ’s claim is that the White Moor authorities in Mauritania pe rsec uted him by ph y sic a lly

ha rm inghim , a

rr e sti nghim , d e ta ini nghim , an d ev e ntu a lly re mov ing him fr om h is land bec ause of

his status as a B lack F ulani. Whether he wa s imprisoned in connec tion with a

cer tain event a

nd the total number of times t h at he was arr ested a nd/or detaine d are centr al components of Sy ’s claim for asyl u m . T h i s is especia lly so beca use, despite c laiming that the authorities came to bother him “ very often” (A.R. 54), Sy testified to only two specific occur renc es

– in 1 9 8 9 an d

A u g u s t 2 0 0 1 –

o nd ir e c t e xa mi n a ti o n( an d , w h e np r e s s e d o nc r o s s - e xa mi n a ti o n, ref ere nced one additional incident in eac h of those y ear s). Sy ’s other a

rg uments are also unavailing

. He a rgues that implausibilit y

alone c annot form the basis of a

n adver se cr edibility

finding . But the I J ’s cr edibili t y finding was ba sed larg ely on inconsistencies in Sy ’s testimony – the I J s i n gl ed o u t o nly one aspe ct that he thoug ht was “implausible”: that the police issued Sy a summons to appear

befor e them in Mauritania only seven day s after removing him from the country

. I n any case , this a rg ument conce rns a claim not befor e us. The I J ’s appa

rent distrust of the timing of the summons relates to the I J ’s suspicion conce rning the dates Sy g ave for arr iving in the United States, which led to the judg e’s e ventual conc lusion that Sy had not prove d that he had f iled his asy lum application within one y ear of arr iving. B ut, we do

no t c on sid e r t

hat c on c lus ion

he re be c a

us e the B I A d id n ot rel y on untim e lin e ss a s a ba sis fo r i ts aff irmance

.Sy or ig ina lly

a tta c he d in fo rm a tio n a

bo ut t he c ou p a s add e nd a to his br ie f in this c ourt . T his 4 court g rante d the g overnme nt’s motion to s trike the a ddenda be cause the documents we re not a part of the a dminist rative r ecor d in this case. See G ishta v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 972, 979 (6th Cir. 2005) (re fusing to consider e x tra-r ecor d information). Sy also argues that any

inconsisten ci es with his original a sy lum application should not be g iven much we ight be cause that application w as subm itted pro se. B ut the I J relied upon Sy ’s orig inal application only with r eg ard to a single inconsistency among the seve ral proble ms it not ed. Ev e n d isr e g a rd ingSy ’s or ig ina l a pp lic a tio n, his te sti mony

a t th e he ari ng wa s in te rn a lly inc on sis te nt, at times non-re sponsive, and lac ked cor roboration. B e c a us e Sy ’s a sylum

c la im f a ils , h is w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l and CA T c la ims fa il a s w e ll. See E l-Moussa v. Holde r , 5 69 F .3 d 2 50 , 25 7 (6 th Cir

. 20 09 ) (“ Th e I J’s fi nd ing that E l- Mo us sa did

no t te sti fy

c re dib ly pr e c lud e s h e r f

ro m me e tin g any

of [the ] bur de ns of

pr oo f [f or a sylum , wi thh old ing of re mov a l, o r p ro te c tio n und e r C AT ].” ); Bah v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 637, 643 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“ Be cause Ba

h cannot show that she qualifies for asylum, she cannot mee t the more string ent standards r equire d to qualify for the pr otections of withholding of remova l or under CAT.” ) 2. New E vidence Finally , Sy

urg es us to consider the eff ect of a 2008 mi litary coup in Mauritania

. We may 4 not reviewclaims that are not administratively exhausted. See 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y,

we may on ly c on sid e r “ the a dmi nis tr a tiv e re c or d o n whi c h th e or de r o f r e mov a l is ba se d, ” 8 U .S. C. § 1 25 2( b) (4 )( A) . F ur

the r, we canno t “ or de r t he takin g of

a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e .” 8 U .S. C. § 1252(a) (1). Thus, we may not cons i d er Sy ’s ar g uments conce rning the ef fec t of the 2008 coup. Cf. Ly v. Holder , No. 09-3031, 2010 WL1780261 at *5 (6th Cir. May 4, 2010) (r efusingto take judicial notice of or

consider e x tra-r ecor d information about the 2008 c o u p in Mauritania) . Theproper

proce dure is for

Sy to file a motion to reopen w ith the BIA to consider the new e vidence

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). III . We c ann ot c on c lud e that any re a so na ble a dju dic a tor wo uld be c omp e lle d to f ind c on tr a ry to the B I A’s dete rmination. Acc ording ly , we DENY Sy ’s petition for re view of the BI A’s dec ision.