FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 38 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -2 80 -3 28 NDEYE N DICKE SECK, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 8, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d S EYMOUR, Cir cu itJu dg es . * SEYMOUR, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Honora ble Stephanie K. Sey

mour, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.Ms . Ndeye Ndic ke Seck , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof S en eg al , pet it io ns for

rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA’s”) f in al ord er, wh ic h affi rm edanIm

m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s dec is io n t o d en y he r ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 ). Ms . Seckcla im s tha t i f sh e returns to Sen eg al , itis m or e li ke ly tha n no t t ha t s he wil l b e b eat enor k il le d fo r at te m pt in g t o p ro te cthe r U.S. cit iz en daug ht er, B.D., fro m

be in g s ub

jecte d t o fe m al e g en it al m ut il at io n. W e g ran t t he pe ti ti onforrev ie w bec au se th e BIA fa il edto gi ve reas on ed co ns id erat io n t o M s. Se ck ’s app li cat io n wh enitfou ndsh e co ul d re lo cat e wit hi n Sen eg al to av oi d p ers ecu ti on . W e v acat e th e BIA’s d eci si on with re ga rdto Ms . Seck ’s app li cat io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d re m an d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . I. A. Fem al e g en it al m

ut il at io n (“ FGM”) is a ge ne ral term us edto de sc rib e se ve ral types of p ro cedur es in vo lv in g t he rem ov al of s om e o r al l o f th e ex te rn al ge ni ta li a, whi chis pe rfo rm edon gi rls an d wo m enpri m ari ly in Afri ca an d As ia . Aba y v. Ash cr of

t , 36 8 F .3d63 4, 6 38 (6t h C ir. 2 00 4) . 2The Depa rtment o f St at e h as cla ss ifi ed , bas edon W or ldHeal th

Org an iz at io n t y

po lo gy, the pre va le ntform s o f fem al e g en it al m ut il at io n. Ty

pe I, co m m on ly referre d t o a s “ cl it or id ect omy ,” is th e rem ov al of the cli to ral ho odwith o r wit ho utrem ov al of a ll or p artof th e cl it or is . Ty

pe II, co m

m on ly referre d t o a s “ ex ci si on ,” is th e rem ov al of the cli to ris to ge th er wi th part o r al l o f th e labi a m in or a. Ty pe III, co m

m on ly referre d t o a s “ in fib ul at io n,” is th e rem ov al of pa rt o r al l o f th e ex te rn al ge ni ta li a (cl it or is , lab iam in or a an d l ab ia m ajor a) an d s ti tc hi ng or n arro win g o f th e v ag in al op en in g, l eav in g a ve ry sm al l o pe ni ng , abo utth e si ze o f a m at ch st ic k, t o a ll ow fo r th e flo w of u rin e an d m en st ru al bl oo d. Id. at 6 38 n.1 . Accor di ng to th e St at e Dep art m en t, Ty pe II an d Type III are b ot h pr act ic edby gro up s i n S en eg al . U.S. Dep’t of Sta te , Se ne

ga l: Rep or t o n Fema le Gen ital Mut ilat io n (FGM) o r Fema le Geni ta l Cu tt in g (FGC) (Ju ne 1, 2 00 1) (h erei na fte r “

Rep or t o n FGM

”), Rec . at 1 65 . Thes e Sen eg al es e g ro up s b el ie ve 1 th atth e Qur anrequi res wom ento un de rg o F GM. “ It i s g en eral ly perfo rm edby wom enof t he bl ack sm it h’s ca st e . . . with ou t t he us e o f an es th es ia .” Id. The ris ks an d e ffec ts of F GM are well do cu m en te d. Itex po se s t he vi ct im to ris ks of “ se rio us , po te nt ia ll y li fe-thr eat en in g c om

pl ic at io ns ,” in cl ud in g “bl eed in g, in fect io n, u rin e ret en ti on , stres s, s ho ck , ps y ch ol og ic al traum a, an d d am ag e to th e ur ethr a an d a nu s.” In re K as in ga , 21 I. & N. Dec. 35 7, 3 61 (BIA 1 99 6) . In Although the State Depa rtment’s Report on FGM

states that Ty

pe I Iis commonly 1 prac ticed in Seneg al, it describe s Ty pe I Ias “the excision (removal) of the clitoral hood with or without removal of a ll or part of the clitoris.” Report on FGM , Rec. at 165. As stated, this proce dure is more ty

pically classified a s Ty

pe I . See A bay , 368 F.3d at 638 n.1. Our a naly sis of Ms. Seck’s petition is the same re g ardle ss of whethe r clitoridec tomies or excisions are more commonly

prac ticed in Seneg al. 3ad di ti on to pe rm an en tl y di sf ig ur in g t he vi ct im ’s gen it al ia , it“ can res ul t i n pe rm an en t l os s o f ge ni ta l s en sa ti on an d c anadve rs el y affe ctsex ua l an d e ro ti c fu nc ti on s.” Id

. InSep te m

be r 20 00 , Ms . Seckwas a dm it te d t o t he Uni te d S ta te s as a to ur is t. Dur in g h er s ta y , sh e g av e b irth t o h er d au gh te r, B.D. Two m on th s l at er Ms . Seck returne d t o S en eg al with B .D. Alth ou gh Ms . Seckis a m em be r of th e Leb ou ethn ic gro up , B.D. is a m em be r of he r fat he r’s ethn ic or t rib al gro up , th e Tou co ul eu r. The Leb ou s d o n otpra ct ic e an y form of F GM, bu t t he Tou co ul eu r 2 pe rfo rm FGM o n the ir g irl s, ty

pi cal ly beg in ni ng at a ro un d a ge th ree. In20 02 , Ms . Seckli ve d i n Dak ar, Sen eg al ’s cap it al an d l arg es t ci ty, whe re sh e worke d fo r anair li ne . She returne d h om e fro m workon e d ay

an d d is co ve red th atB.D.’ s p at ern al au ntha d t ak enB.D. with ou t M s. Se ck ’s perm is si on . She imm ed ia te ly dro ve to th e aunt ’s ho us e, whi chwas app ro xi m at el y th irt y or f orty m in ut es away . The au ntan d h er fam il y tri edto co nv in ce M s. Se ck to letth em ke ep B.D. for

th e week en d, b utMs . Seckrefu se d. Sh e fea redth atif s he all owe d B.D. to st ay , th ey

wou ldsubjec t h er t o F GM. B.D. was ap pr oa ch in g t he ag e at whi chgi rls in th e tr ib e are subjec te d t o F GM, an d a ll of h er fe m al e co us in s h ad The re cord use s various terms for B.D .’s ethnic group includingToucouleur , 2 Haa lpulaare n (or Ha lpularen) , and Pulaar . To avoid conf usion, we use “ Toucouleur ” throughout the opinion. 4al read y

un de rg on e FGM. In ad di ti on , B.D.’ s fa th er’s fam il y ha d b eg un to tal k ab ou t an d p la n fo r pe rfo rm in g F GM o n h er. Ms . Seckreal iz edth atB.D.’ s fa th er’s fam il y or h is tri be co ul d t ak e B.D. “ atan y ti m e,” an d t ha t M s. Se ck“wou ldbe es se nt ia ll y

po werl es s t o s to p the m ” fro m pe rfo rm in g F GM o n h er d au gh te r. Rec. at25 1. A few m on th s l at er, i n J ul y 20 02 , Ms . Seckan d h er d au gh te r le ft S en eg al an d e nt eredth e Uni te d S ta te s. Sh e subs eque nt ly hadtwo so ns in th e Uni te d S ta te s by B.D.’ s fa th er. InJan uary

20 07 , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rity (fo rm erl y

th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic e) s erv edMs . Seckwith aNot ic e to App ear, ch arg in g h er as rem ov ab le pu rs ua ntto INA § 2 37 (a)( 1) (B), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(B) . After s ecu rin g c ou ns el , sh e ap pe aredbe fo re anIm m ig rat io n Ju dg e (“ IJ ”), ad m it te d t o t he factua l al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d i n t he Not ic e to App ear, an d c on ced edrem ov ab il it y . InSep te m

be r 20 07 , Ms . Seckfil edanap pl ic at io n s eek in g a sylum an d wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA an d re li ef u nd er the Co nv en ti on Agai ns t Tortur e (“ CAT”). Sh e as se rte d t ha t i f th e g ov ern m en t re m ov es he r to Sen eg al , sh e wil l b e fo rcedto tak e B.D. wit h h er. Sh e ex pl ai ne d tha t i f th ey return t o S en eg al , sh e b el ie ve s B .D. will be subjec te d t o fe m al e g en it al m ut il at io n a ndMs . Seckwil l 5be be at enor k il le d wh ensh e tr ie s t o p rev en t t he pro cedur e.

Dur in g t he asylu m

he ari ng be fo re the IJ, M s. Se ck tes ti fie d abo utth e ci rcu m st an ces th atledhe r to lea ve Sen eg al with B .D. In ad di ti on to th e in ci de nt wit h B .D.’ s p at ern al au nt , Ms . Seckex pl ai ne d t ha t h er s is te r, Awa, has a Tou co ul eu r daug ht er. Alt ho ug h Awa i s o pp os edto FGM, h er d au gh te r was subjec te d t o t he pro cedur e atag e fi ve witho utAwa’ s kno wled ge . Awa’ s ex hu sb an d t oo k t he ir d au gh te r to a bi rth da y pa rty andlef

t h er the re fo r th e week en d. Whe n t he li tt le gi rl r eturne d, Awa d is co ve redFGM h adbe enpe rfo rm edonhe r. Ms . Seckpro du ceda writ te n d ecl arat io n fr om Awa anda m ed ic al cert ifi cat e co rro bo rat in g t ha t Awa’s d au gh te r was subjec te d t o F GM. Awa’s dec la rat io n in di cat edth atsh e li ve s i n t he Daka r reg io n. Awa d ecl aredth atsh e li ve s n ear B.D.’ s fa th er’s fam il y

an d kno ws the m

ve ry well . Accor di ng to Awa, th e fam il y of B.D.’ s fa th er wi ll do an yth in g t o p erfo rm FGM o n h er. Awa ex pl ai ne d t ha t i f Ms . Seckan d B .D. retu rnto Sen eg al , “ th ey wil l b e in pe rp etua l d an ge r,” an d B .D.

“ su rel y ” wil l b e subjec te d t o F GM. Rec. at19 9. In he r jud gm en t, Ms . Seckwil l be un ab le to pro te ctB.D. andwil l b e “ th reat en [ed ], be at en , in su lt ed , or k il le d” for tryin g t o d o s o. Id. Ms . Secktes ti fie d t ha t i f sh e is requi redto return t o S en eg al , sh e wil l t ak e he r ch il dr enwith h er b ecau se sh e d oe s n otkn ow an y on e in th e Uni te d S ta te s wh o 6wou ldcare forth em . She do es no t h av e an y fam il y m em be rs in th is co un try, and sh e d oe s n otkn ow wh ere h er ch il dr en ’s fathe r is , alt ho ug h s he be li ev es he is st il l in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Mo reo ve r, sh e b el ie ve s h er ch il dr en ’s fathe r wou ldall ow h is fam il y to pe rfo rm

FGM o n B .D., eithe r by sen di ng B.D. to Sen eg al or b y pe rm it ti ng hi s fa m il y

m em be rs to co m e to th e Uni te d S ta te s t o p erfo rm th e pr oc edur e. Ms . Seck ’s att orne y in di cat edth atif t he fathe r is st il l i n t he Uni te d St at es , he i s p res um ab ly here i ll eg al ly. Ms . Secktes ti fie d t ha t s he wou ldno t b e sa fe an y whe re i n S en eg al . This is so be cau se B.D. is reco gn iz ab le as To uc ou le urdu e to he r na m e an d s ki n c ol or , and th e Tou co ul eur are ev erywhe re. Inad di ti on , B.D.’ s fa th er’s fam il y co nt in ue s t o b e in to uc h wi th Awa, andha ve sai d “ th ey ’re wait in g fo r [B.D.], thatsh e’s go in g t o co m e b ack , th ey ’re go in g t o d o i t [F GM] to h er.” Id. at 1 33 . Whe n a sk edwhat wou ldhapp enif s he tri edto pro te ctB.D. andpre ve ntFGM, s he ex pl ai ne d: The y m ig ht , th ey

m ig htpe rs ecu te m e. They mig htbe atm e o r ki ll m e. Bec au se th ey

co ns id er tha t my se lf, I’m no t a h um anbe in g, b ecau se I was no t ci rcu m ci se d; I’m im pu re. So , th ey

do n’t wan t [B .D.] to be li ke m e. They will do th ei r be stto ge t t o h er, b ecau se sh e is – the y co ns id er tha t s he is pa rt o f th em . She is supp os edto be pu re l ik e h er fat he r’s co us in s. Id. at 1 32 . Alth ou gh Ms . Seckpe rs on al ly doe s n otkn ow an y on e who ha s b een ha rm edby try in g t o p rev en t FGM , sh e kno ws o f anact iv is t wh o was m ur de red

7aft er at te m

pt in g t o s to p the pra ct ic e in Sen eg al . Ms . Seckals o p ro vi de d l et te rs fro m fri en ds expl ai ni ng th atall of t he wom en on B.D.’ s fa th er’s s id e o f th e fam il y ha ve un de rg on e FGM, tha t FGM is in ev it ab le fo r B.D., andth atMs . Seckwil l b e ri sk in g h er l ife if s he returns to Sen eg al . A Sen eg al es e fri en d o f Ms . Seck ’s wrot e, “ Man y wom enhave be enbe at en , alm os t t o de ath, fo r ta lk in g p ub li cl y [ab ou t FGM ]. ” Id. at 2 20 –2 1. Afte r th e g ov ern m en t cr os s- ex am in edMs . Seck , th e IJ adm it te d o n h is own m ot io n t he Repo rt

on FGM refe ren cedab ov e, th e U.S. Department o f St at e, Se ne ga l, 2 00 7 C

ou ntryRepo rt

s o n Hu man Right

s Pr ac ti ces (Mar . 11 , 20 08 ) (h erei na fte r “ Co un tr

y Rep or t ”), an d t he U.S. Departm en t o f St at e’s Bu reauof Dem oc racy, Hum anRig ht s, an d Lab or , Se ne ga l –Pro fi le of Asyl um Cl ai ms & Co un tr y Co nd it io ns (J un e 1 99 8) (he rei na fte r “ Se ne ga l Pr of il e ”). Acco rd in g t o th es e rep orts , app ro xi m at el y twen ty perce ntof the fem al e p op ul at io n o f Sen eg al ha s u nd erg on e FGM. Fo rty perc en t o f pr ev io us ly-prac ti ci ng co m m un it ie s i n Sen eg al have st op pe d p erfo rm in g F GM. The To uc ou le ur , ho wev er, co nt in ue to pe rfo rm FGM o n g irl s an d “ on e o f th e m os t ex tre m e an d d an ge ro us form s o f FGM[] was s om et im es pra ct ic edby the Tou co ul eu r . . . part ic ul arl y in rur al an d so m e u rb anarea s.” Co un tr y Rep or t , Rec. at18 8. Am on g ru ral Tou co ul eu r, up to 88 % of wo m enha ve be ensubjec te d t o F GM. Am on g u rb anTou co ul eu r, itis 8es ti m at edth atth e rat e o f FGM i s t wen ty perce nt . FGM is il le ga l i n S en eg al , bu t i t

rem ai ns “ wid es pr ead ” an d i s s ti ll pra ct ic ed“ op en ly andwith i m pu ni ty” by

m an y . Id. at 1 77 , 18 8. “ Altho ug h t he go ve rn m en t h as be enact iv el y see ki ng to erad ic at e th is pra ct ic e,” the Sta te Department r ep orte d i t was “un aware of a ny pro te ct io n i n pl ace t ha t m ig hthe lp a wom anwho wis he d t o a vo idit .” Rep or t o n FGM , Rec. at 16 7. Ms . Seckne xtso ug htto cal l M r. Am ad ouDial lo to tes ti fy , bu t t he go ve rn m en t o bjec te d a ndcla im edhe was asurp ris e wit ne ss . At th e g ov ern m en t’s reque st , Ms . Seck ’s att orne y pro vi de d apro fferof M r. Dial lo ’s tes ti m on y : Ess en ti al ly his tes ti m on y wou ldbe th athe m etMs . Seckin th e Uni te d S ta te s; th athe was a ctua ll y no t an ey e witne ss to an y act io n i n Sen eg al , bu t t ha t he is a memb er of th e [T ou co ul eu r] tr ib e wh ic h wi de lyco nduc ts th e p ra ct ic e o f f ema le cir cu mcis io n ; tha t h e h as fam il y m em be rs th athave un de rg on e th atpra ct ic e; th athe is fam il ia r wit h t he , with t he de gr ee t o wh ic h t he y , to whi ch th ey do so , and th at th ey p er se cu te pe op le wh o w il l n ot un de rg o [

FGM] , as wel l a s the ir fa mil y memb er

s . He kn ows th e th in gs th atth e res po nd en t h as to ld hi m . He cou ldreco un t tha t as far as th e fea r th atsh e fac es , as fa r as wha t h er ch il d’s fa th er’s fam il y m em be rs ha ve sai d i n Afr ic a, an d ba si cal ly ca n c or ro bo ra te th at th at co mpo rt s w ith g en er al lykn ow n pr ac ti ces in Se ne

ga l . Rec . at 1 52 (em

ph as is ad de d) . Inres po ns e, th e g ov ern m en t’s at to rn ey st at ed , [T ] he Depa rtmen t is n ot

go in g t o c on test th at

FGM i s co nduc te d i n Afri ca b y th is tri be inth is co un try, andth at th es e ch ildr en m ig htbe 9subjec te d t o t ha t, o r [w il l] pr ob ab ly[b e] su bj ect ed to th at , if th ey wer e to vo lu nt ar il

y re tu rn as Uni te d Sta tes ci ti ze ns to th at

co un tr y . If th at ’s th e ex te ntof h is tes ti m on y , we wo uld a ccep t the pr of fe r a nd as k th e Co ur t t o a ccep t the pr of fe r . Id. at 1 53 (em

ph as is ad de d) . The IJ sai d h e wou ldli ke to qu es ti on th e wit ne ss . In res po ns e to a qu es ti on fro m th e IJ , Ms . Seck ’s att orne y sai d h e was wil li ng to rel y on th e p ro fferan d a ll ow t he jud ge to ex am in e th e wit ne ss , to whi ch th e go ve rn m en t ag reed . The IJ a sk edMr. Dia ll o que st io ns ab ou t t he pra ct ic e o f FGM i n S en eg al . Mr. Di al lo tes ti fie d t ha t t o h is kn owl ed ge , th e rat e o f FGM am on g To uc ou le ur wom enis on e h un dr edpe rcen t. He s ai d t ha t h e b el ie ve s h e can on ly keep hi s o wn daug ht ers saf

e fro m FGM b y ke ep in g t he m

in th e Uni te d S ta te s, wh ere h e is a pe rm an en t re si de nt . B. The IJ i ss ue d a n o ral de ci si on in whi ch he de ni edall rel ie f to Ms . Seck . 3 The IJ f ou ndMs . Seck“ to be a rel at iv el y cred ib le in di vi du al ,” al th ou gh he als o

“ su sp ect [ed ] so m e em

be ll is hm en t o f he r fea r of he r daug ht er b ei ng cir cu m ci se d Ms. Seck does not appe al the denia l of her a sylum and CAT claims. As a r esult we only 3 discuss her a

pplication for withholdingof re moval. We note the B IA deter mined Ms. Seck was time-barr ed fr om seekingasylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4. Even if Ms. Seck had pe titioned for our re view of theasylum claim, we lac k jurisdiction to review the ag ency ’s deter

mination of the timeliness of an asy lum application. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) ; Sanchez J imenez v . U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 492 F.3d 1223, 1231 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 10. . . . ” Rec . at 8 5. With reg ardto he r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im , th e IJ

ex pl ai ne d t ha t u nd er BI A pre ced en t, “ anap pl ic an t m ay no t es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al ba se d o n fe ar tha t h er d au gh te r wou ldbe ha rm edby bei ng for cedto un de rg o fe m al e g en it al m ut il at io n upo n re tu rn in g t o h er ho m e co un try.” Id. at 8 7 (c it in g In re A-K - , 24 I. & N. Dec. 27 5 (B IA 20 07 )). The IJreco gn iz ed , ho wev er, tha t M s. Se ck ’s cla im “ go es on e st ep furth er” a ndall eg es th atMs . Seckhe rs el f “ wou ldbe ha rm edup onreturn t o S en eg al if s he att em pt edto st op th e ci rcu m ci si on [of

B.D.] ” Id

. The IJ r el ie d o n t he Rep or t o n FGM , th e Se ne ga l Pr of il e , andth e Co un tr

y Rep or t to de te rm in e th atth e rat e o f FGM i n u rb anarea s o f Sen eg al was n ot su ffi ci en tl y

hi gh forMs . Seckto est ab li shhe r cl ai m . He fou nd , “ Co ns id eri ng co un try con di ti on s as a who le , itdo es ap pe ar t o t he Co urt t ha t wer e res po nd en t t o return t o S en eg al with h er d au gh te r an d l iv e in a he av il y po pu la te d u rb anarea , it wou ldno t b e m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe r daug ht er wo ul d b e subjec te d t o fe m al e ge ni ta l m ut il at io n.” Id. at 8 8. As a res ul t, the IJ d en ie d M s. Se ck ’s app li cat io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d o rd eredhe r rem ov edto Sen eg al . Ms . Seckap pe al edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o t he BIA. The B IA reco gn iz edMs . Seck ’s cla im

th atsh e wil l b e b eat enor k il le d i f sh e tr ie s t o p rev en t B.D. fro m un de rg oi ng FGM. Se e id. at 2 0 (“ The res po nd en t o pp os es th e p ract ic e o f FGM 11an d i s o pp os edto th e d au gh te r un de rg oi ng th e p ro cedur e, bu t b el ie ve s t ha t s he

wil l b e b eat enor k il le d i f sh e tr ie s t o s to p i t.”) . It co nc urredwith the IJ’s fi nd in g th atMs . Seckwas c red ib le . It the n s ta te d: An al ie n m ay

no t es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al ba se d s ol el y

onfearth athi s o r he r daug ht er wi ll be ha rm edby bei ng for ced to un de rg o F GM upo n re tu rn in g t o the ali en ’s ho m e co un try. W e al so ag ree wi thth e Imm ig rat io n Jud ge th at[Ms . Seck ] fai le d t o sh ow t ha t i nt ern al rel oc at io n t o a no th er p artof t he co un try was n otpo ss ib le to av oi d h er d au gh te r be in g s ub jecte d t o F GM. Id. at 2 0– 21 (ci ta ti on s an d fo ot no te om it te d) . In a fo ot no te , th e BIA o pi ne d t ha t be cau se B.D. is a U.S. cit iz en , sh e co ul d a vo idth e ri skof F GM b y rem ai ni ng in th e Uni te d S ta te s wi th he r fat he r ora gu ard ia n, as sh e is leg al ly ent it le d t o d o. Id. at21 n.3 (ci ti ng In re A-K - , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 2 77 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e BIA di sm is se d M s. Se ck ’s app eal . Ms . Seckfil eda pe ti ti onforrev ie w of t he BIA’s de ci si on inth is co urt. Sh e al so fil eda m ot io n t o re co ns id er wi th th e BIA. The BIA d en ie d h er m ot io n t o reco ns id er af

te r br ie fin g was co m

pl et e in th is ap pe al , bu t b efo re o ral arg um en t.

II . W e rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on ex cep t t o t he ex te ntth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n o r rea so ni ng . Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 12(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Here, th e BIA i ss ue d i ts own op in io n a ndrel ie d o n t he IJ’s

de ci si on an d re as on in g wi th ou t ex pr es sl y ad op ti ng it s o pi ni on . W e th eref or e

“ rev ie w th e IJ ’s op in io n, t o t he ex te ntth atth e BIA fo un d t ha t the IJ’s re as on s wer e supp orte d b y

th e rec or d,” an d we “ rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on , with re ga rdto th os e m at te rs on whi ch itren de redit s o wn o pi ni on an d re as on in g.” Ta ng v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 8 F .3d12 70 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t ap pl ie s t o t he BIA’s de te rm in at io n t ha t an al ie n i s s ta tu to ril y

in el ig ib le forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 12 83 . Purs ua ntto th is tes t, “ we vi ew th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof th atde ci si on .” Ade

fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). “ W e m

us t af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Id. (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e m ay rev ers e th e BIA’s fin di ng s o f fac t “ on ly whe n t he reco rdco m pe ls a rev ers al ; the m ere f actth atth e reco rdm ay

supp ort a c on tra ry

co nc lu si on is no t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of t he adm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Id. ; se e a ls o 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(4 )(B) (“ [A]dm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s o f fac t ar e co nc lu si ve un le ss an y reas on ab le ad jud ic at orwou ldbe co m

pe ll edto co nc lu de to th e co ntrary . . . .”). W e rev ie w

13qu es ti on s o f la w de n ov o b utde fer t o t he BIA’s reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f

ap pl ic ab le st atut es . Na

jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. The BIA an d t he IJ “ m

us t co ns id er al l ev id en ce i nt ro du cedby the ap pl ic an t.” Ta n v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 6 F .3d13 69 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; se e a ls o 8 C.F .R. § 1 24 0.1 (c) (“ The imm ig rat io n ju dg e sh al l re cei ve an d c on si de r m at eri al an d re le vantev id en ce

. . . . ”). Whe re the BIA “ ha s g iv enreas on edco ns id erat io n t o t he pe ti ti on , and m ad e ad equa te fin di ng s, we wi ll no t re qu ire th atitad dr es s s pe ci fic al ly each c la im th e p et it io ne r m ad e o r eac h p ie ce o f ev id en ce the pe ti ti on er p res en te d.” Ta n , 44 6 F.3 d a t 1 37 4 (c it at io n a ndin te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Howev er, the BIA

“ m us t co ns id er the is su es rai se d andan no un ce i ts de ci si on in term s s uf fic ie ntto en ab le a rev ie win g c ou rt t o p erce iv e th atitha s h eardan d t ho ug htan d n otm erel y reac te d.” Id. (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . II I. To o bt ai n wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , an app li can t m us t d em on st rat e th athe r

“ li fe o r free do m

wou ldbe th reat en edin th atco un try [of re m ov al ] be cau se of [ he r] race , rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). The ap pl ic an t b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng 14th atsh e “ m or e-l ik el y -th an -n otwou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu redup on [he r] retu rnto

th e co un try in que st io n.” Men do za v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 32 7 F .3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ); se e a ls o 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .16 (b ). “ The tes ti m on y of t he ap pl ic an t, i f cred ib le , m ay

be su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in th e b ur de n o f pr oo f [fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al ] wit ho utco rro bo rat io n.” 8 C.F.R . § 2 08 .16 (b ). An ap pl ic an t fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al m ay sat is fy he r bu rd enof p ro of

in on e o f two way s. Fi rs t, s he m ay est ab li sh pa stpe rs ecu ti onin he r co un try bas edon a p ro te ct edgro un d, wh ic h c reat es a reb ut tabl e p res um pt io n t ha t h er l ife or f

reed om wou ldbe th reat en edin th e fu tu re i n t ha t co un try. Id. § 2 08 .16 (b )(1 ); Men do za , 32 7 F .3dat 1 28 7; Ta n , 44 6 F .3dat 1 37 5. Al te rn at iv el y , an app li can t wh o h as no t su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti onm ay de m on st rat e th athe r li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edinth e fu tu re i n t he co un try of rem ov al ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d. To do th is , th e al ie n m

us t es tabl is h “ th atitis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth at. . . sh e wou ld be pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n upo n re m ov al to th atco un try.” 8 C.F.R. § 2 08 .16 (b )(2 ); se e a ls o Ta n , 44 6 F .3dat 1 37 5. “ An al ie n c an no t d em on st rat e th at [s he ] m or e-l ik el y -th an -n otwou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o n apro te ct edgro un d i f th e IJ fin ds th atth e al ie n c ou ldav oi d afutur e th reatby relo cat in g t o a no th er p artof [ he r] co un try.” Men do za , 32 7 F .3dat 1 28 7 (c it in g 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( b) (2 )). 15The BIA h as pre vi ou sl y he ldth atanali enm ay

no t es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al or a sylum so le ly by all eg in g afearth athi s o r he r U.S. ci ti zen daug ht er wi ll be for cedto un de rg o F GM in th e al ie n’s h om e co un try. In re A-K- , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 2 78 –7 9. Ma ny of o ursi st er ci rcu it s h av e ad op te d t hi s ru le . Se e, e.g . , Mar ik

o v . Holde r , 63 2 F .3d1, 8 (1s t Ci r. 20 11 ); Ka ne v. Holde r , 58 1 F .3d23 1, 2 40 –4 2 (5 th Cir . 20 09 ); Guma ne h v . Muka se y , 53 5 F .3d78 5, 78 9– 90 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ; Ni an g v . Gon za les , 49 2 F .3d50 5, 5 13 (4t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; Ofo rj i v. As hc ro

ft , 35 4 F .3d60 9, 6 18 (7t h C ir. 2 00 3) ; cf . Kon e v. Holde r , 59 6 F .3d 14 1, 1 53 (2dCir . 20 10 ) (o bs erv in g t ha t s uc h d eri va ti ve cla im s ap pe ar t o b e fo recl os edinth e Sec on d C irc ui t b y Sh i Li an g L in v. U.S. Dep ’t o f Ju st ic e , 49 4 F.3 d 2 96 (2dCir . 20 07 ) (en ba nc )). But see Abeb e v. Gon za les , 43 2 F .3d10 37 , 10 43 (9t h C ir. 2 00 5) (rem an di ng to BIA to ad dr es s t hi s que st io n i n the fir st in st an ce). We hav e n otde ci de d thi s que st io n i n apubl is he d o pi ni on . In Axmed v. U.S. Att orne

y Gen er al , 14 5 F . App ’x 66 9, 6 75 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), ho wev er, we se em edto en do rs e d eci si on s p ro hi bi ti ng th es e d eri va ti ve asylu m cla im s wh ere t he daug ht er h as a ri gh t t o re m ai n i n Un it edSta te s. Inad di ti on , th e Fo urth Cir cu itha s h el d t ha t “ pe rs ecu ti on ” fo r pu rp os es of as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al do es no t i nc lu de th e p sycho lo gi cal harm th ata pa ren t wo ul d e ndur e if

hi s o r he r daug ht er were to be subjec te d t o F GM ag ai ns t

16hi s o r he r wil l. Se e Ni an g , 49 2 F .3dat 5 11 –1 2 (h ol di ng th at“be cau se

‘pers ecu ti on ’ can no t b e b as edon a fearof p sycho lo gi cal ha rm alo ne ,” pe ti ti on er was in el ig ib le for

withh ol di ng of r em ov al ba se d o n t he ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm sh e wou ldsu fferif h er U.S. ci ti zen daug ht er were to un de rg o F GM). The Six th Ci rcu itreac he d t he op po si te co nc lu si on , ho wev er, an d g ran te d re fu ge e st atus to a m ot he r se ek in g a sylum

ba se d o n t he ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm sh e wou ldsu fferif h er daug ht er, a n on -U.S. cit iz en , un de rwen t FGM inth ei r ho m e co un try. Se e Aba y v. Ash cr of t , 36 8 F .3d63 4, 6 42 (6t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ [A] rati on al fact fin de r wou ldbe co m pe ll edto fin d t ha t Ab ay ’s fear o f ta ki ng he r daug ht er i nt o t he li on ’s den of fem al e g en it al m

ut il at io n i n Ethi op iaan d b ei ng for cedto witne ss th e p ai n a nd su ffer in g o f he r daug ht er i s wel l-f ou nd ed .”). Oth er ci rcu it s h av e al so su gg es te d th atsu ch ps y ch ol og ic al su ffer in g a ndan gu is h c ou ldco ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on or to rtu re. Se e Ko ne v. Holde r , 62 0 F .3d76 0, 7 66 (7t h C ir. 2 01 0) (rem an di ng to BIA to co ns id er wh ethe r th reatof F GM o n p et it io ne rs ’ U.S. cit iz endaug ht er co ul d co ns ti tu te di rectpe rs ecu ti on of h er p aren ts un de r th e CAT); Ko ne , 59 6 F .3dat 15 2– 53 (rem an di ng to BIA to co ns id er wh ethe r “ th e m en ta l an gu is h o f a m ot he r who was h ers el f a v ic ti m of g en it al m

ut il at io n wh o fa ces th e ch oi ce o f se ei ng he r daug ht er s uf

fer t he same fate, o r av oi di ng th atou tc om e b y sep arat io n fr om

he r ch il d, m ay

qu al ify” pet it io ne r fo r “ hu m an it ari anasylu m ” u nd er 8 C.F.R. 17§ 1 20 8.1 3( b) (1 )(i ii )(B) ).

W e n eedno t d eci de whet he r Ms . Seckco ul d e st ab li sh he r el ig ib il it y for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al ba se d o n fe ar tha t B.D. wil l b e fo rcedto un de rg o F GM in Sen eg al or the ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm Ms . Seckwou lden du re i f th is oc cu rs . Unl ik e th e p et it io ne rs inth e ci te d c as es , Ms . Seck ’s withh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im all eg es a fea r of futur e p ers ecu ti on an d p hysic al harm to he rs el f if

sh e is rem ov edto Sen eg al . She co nt en ds itis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth atsh e wil l b e b eat enor k il le d i n Sen eg al for

att em pt in g t o p ro te ctB.D. fro m fem al e g en it al m

ut il at io n. A. Inhe r pe ti ti on forrev ie w, Ms. Se ckfir stco nt en ds th e BIA erredbe cau se it fai le d t o a dd res s h er s pe ci fic arg um en t t ha t s he pe rs on al ly w ou ldbe pe rs ecu te d i f sh e is rem ov edto Sen eg al an d c on ti nu es to op po se th e p ract ic e o f FGM. Acco rd in g t o M s. Se ck , th e BIA ev al ua te d h er cl ai m as i f sh e were o nl y

see ki ng as y lu m ou t o f fea r fo r he r daug ht er, rat he r th anou t o f a fea r fo r he r own saf ety . The go ve rn m en t re sp on ds th atth e BIA s uf fic ie nt ly addres se d h er cl ai m when it de te rm in edsh e co ul d re as on ab ly relo cat e wit hi n S en eg al . W e ag ree wi th th e g ov ern m en t t ha t t he BIA’s or de r of rem ov al di d i n fa ct ackno wled ge an d a dd res s t he cru x o f Ms . Seck ’s cla im . Bot h t he IJ a ndth e BIA ex pl ic it ly recog ni zedMs . Seck ’s arg um en t. The BIA st at ed , “ The res po nd en t 18op po se s t he pra ct ic e o f FGM an d i s o pp os edto th e d au gh te r un de rg oi ng th e

pr oc edur e, bu t b el ie ve s t ha t s he wil l b e b eat enor k il le d i f sh e at te m pt s t o s to p i t.” Rec . at 2 0. Si m il arl y , th e IJ reco gn iz edth atMs . Seck ’s cla im “ go es on e st ep fu rth er” tha n acla im

ba se d s ol el y

on fear f orha rm to he r daug ht er. Id. at 8 7. “Not on ly doe s s he fearha rm

forhe r daug ht er, b utsh e b el ie ve s tha t s he wou ldbe ha rm edup on return t o S en eg al if s he att em pt edto st op th e ci rcu m ci si on .” Id. W e are s at is fie d t ha t wh enth e Bo ardde te rm in edMs . Seckco ul d re lo cat e to av oi d pe rs ecu ti on , itwas c on si de rin g t he ris ks th atsh e wou lden co un te r as B.D.’ s m ot he r an d p ro te ct or , no t m erel y th e ri sk s t o B .D. B. Ms . Seckco nt en ds th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n tha t s he fai le d t o e st ab li sh el ig ib il it y forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al is no t s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. The go ve rn m en t re sp on ds th atth e BIA p ro pe rly det erm in edMs . Seckis in el ig ib le fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al be cau se sh e can saf el y rel oc at e to anurb anareawithi n Sen eg al . 4 The g overnme nt claims Ms. Seck waive d her c halleng e to the B IA’s re location 4 deter mination by

failingto raise the issue in he r openingbrief. T his argument is meritless. Ms. Seck’s sec ond “I ssue on Appea l” in her ope ning brief dire ctly challeng es the B IA’s reloc ation finding . See Pet’r B r. at 2. More over, shededica tes a significant portion of he r openingbrief to c halleng ing the I J ’s finding s reg ardingthe likelihood that she will encounter future pe rsec ution. The issue clea rly has not bee n waived. See Lapaix v . U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 605 F.3d 1138, 1145 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (per cuiram) (“[A] claim may rema in viable if the c ore issue is maintained re g ardle ss of labels.”) . 19Upo n re vi ew of th e BIA’s d eci si on an d t he adm in is tra ti ve reco rd , we co nc lu de th e BIA fa il edto is su e a rea so ne d d eci si on be cau se itig no redsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce tha t s up po rte d M s. Se ck ’s pet it io n. Th e BIA re li edon th e IJ ’s de te rm in at io n t ha t M s. Se ckfai le d t o m eethe r bu rd ento sh ow s he co ul d n ot es cap e p ers ecu ti on by relo cat in g t o ano th er p artof S en eg al . Se e Rec . at 2 1 (“ W e al so ag ree wi th th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge th atth e res po nd en t fa il edto sh ow tha t in te rn al rel oc at io n t o a no th er p artof t he co un try was n otpo ss ib le to av oi d h er daug ht er b ei ng subjec te d t o F GM.”). We the refo re re vi ew th e IJ ’s di sc us si on of th e is su e. Se e Ta ng , 57 8 F .3dat 1 27 5. The IJ ap pe ars to ha ve ba se d h is rel oc at io n d et erm in at io n e nt ire ly on t he St at e Dep art m en t’s Se ne

ga l Pr of il e , th e Repo rt

on FGM , and“ co un try con di ti on s as a who le .” Rec. at88 . He reci te d i nf orm at io n fr om

th e 1 99 8 Se ne

ga l Pr of il e an d t he 20 01 Rep or t o n FGM , whi ch in di cat edth atbe twee n fi ve an d t wen ty pe rcen t o f fem al es inSen eg al ha ve un de rg on e FGM. Th e IJ th enst at ed , “ Fi ve to twen ty perce ntwou ldfal l fa r sh ort o f a cl ear p ro babi li ty of pe rs ecu ti on .” Id. at 8 7. Afte r li st in g s ev eral Sen eg al es e g ro up s t ha t d o n otpra ct ic e FGM, the IJ n ot ed ,

“ Whi le th e m ajor ity

of [ Tou co ul eu r] in ru ral area s o f eas te rnan d s ou th ern Sen eg al co nt in ue to pra ct ic e o ne form or a no th er o f fem al e ci rcu m ci si on , ‘ th e p ract ic e is le ss co m m on am on g u rb an .’ Est im at es on th e urb anrat e is at l es s t ha n 2 0 20pe rcen t.” Id. at 8 8 (quo ti ng Rep or t o n FGM , Rec. at16 5) . Bas edonth es e fac ts , th e IJ de te rm in edth atif M s. Se ckan d B .D. liv edin a “ he av il y po pu la te d u rb an area , itwou ldno t b e m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe r daug ht er wo ul d b e subjec te d t o fem al e g en it al m

ut il at io n.” Id. The IJ di d n otsp eci fic al ly m en ti on th e rat e o f FGM am on g ru ral Tou co ul eu r, whi ch th e St at e Dep art m en t es ti m at edto be up to 88 %. Neit he r th e BIA n orth e IJ di sc us se d t he un di sp ut edev id en ce o f sp eci fic fam il y co nd it io ns th atpl ace B .D. andhe r m ot he r ingre at er d an ge r th anwhatis refl ect edby the ge ne ral st at is ti cs of t he Sta te Depa rtment r ep orts . Accor di ng to Ms . Seck ’s cred ib le tes ti m on y an d c orro bo rat in g d oc um en ts in th e rec or d, B.D.’s co us inun de rwen t FGM ag ai ns t h er m ot he r Awa’s wil l. All of t he wom enin B.D.’ s fa th er’s fam il y

ha ve un de rg on e FGM. B.D.’s fat he r’s fam il y ha s re pe at ed ly an d c on ti nu al ly exp res se d i ts in te ntto pe rfo rm FGM o n B .D. Alth ou gh th e IJ be li ev edth atanurb anareaof S en eg al wou ldpro vi de refu ge forMs . Seckan d B.D., th e rec or d i nd ic at es th atB.D.’ s fa th er’s fam il y li ve s i n t he Daka r are a an d rem ai ns in to uc h wi th Ms . Seck ’s si st er, Awa. As a re su lt , th ere i s ev id en ce tha t ev enth e “ he av il y

po pu la te d u rb anarea ” o f Dak ar o ffer s n o s afe h av enfor B.D. Not ab ly, no ne of the cred ib le tes ti m on y or c orro bo rat in g d oc um en ts off ered by Ms. Sec k c on tra di ct s, o r is co nt rad ic te d b y , th e in fo rm at io n i n t he Sta te 21Dep artm en t’s re po rts . To th e co nt rary, tho se rep orts co rro bo rat e Ms . Seck ’s

te st im on y th ata si gn ifi can t p ro po rti on of To uc ou le ur co nt in ue th e p ract ic e o f FGM, d es pi te laws bann in g t he pra ct ic e. In ev it ab ly, in di vi du al Tou co ul eu r gi rls in Sen eg al wil l h av e a h ig he r orlo wer ri skof u nd erg oi ng FGM d ep en di ng on th ei r sp eci fic cir cu m st an ces . The rat e o f FGM am on g u rb anTou co ul eu r m ay be twen ty pe rcen t, b utun di sp ut edev id en ce i n t he reco rdin di cat es th atB.D.’ s ri skof F GM – an d M s. Se ck ’s ris k o f pe rs ecu ti on – i s m uc h h ig he r th anth at , parti cu la rly in t he Dak ar ar ea. Eve n t he go ve rn m en t’s at to rn ey st at editwasn ’t con te st in g tha t B.D. wou ld“pr ob ab ly [be] subjec te d t o” FGM i f Ms . Seckan d B .D. retu rnto Sen eg al . 5 Id. at 1 53 . Notwit hs ta nd in g t hi s ev id en ce, the IJ d is cu ss edon ly the ge ne ral co un try con di ti on s, wi th ou t ad dr es si ng Ms . Seck ’s cred ib le ev id en ce tha t i nd ic at es B.D. face s a g reat er ri skth anth atrefl ect edin th e St at e Dep art m en t’s re po rts . The re i s s im

pl y no in di cat io n t ha t t he IJ g av e an y co ns id erat io n t o B .D. andMs . Seck ’s sp eci fic si tu at io n. 6 Ms. Seck cha

rac terizes this statement as a stipulation by the g overnme nt that B.D. w ill 5 more-likely-than-not be subjected to F GM if they return to a

ny wher e in Seneg al. In the g overnme nt’s response , it does not challeng e this char acte rization but i nstead a rgues that substantial evidence supports the I J ’s re jection of the stipulation. See Resp’t Br . at 6, 20–21; see also Resp’t 28(j) Notice of Supplemental Authority (Mar . 28, 2011) (quoting Lofti n & W oodward, Inc. v. U

nited States , 577 F.2d 1206, 1232–33 ( 5th Cir. 1978)). The likelihood B.D . will actually underg o FGM is not a pr ecise measure of the 6 likelihood that Ms. S eck w ill be persec uted for pr otectingB.D . For example, Ms. Seck’s risk of perse cution may

be higher be cause she could be injured or killed whe n protec ting B .D. from unsucce ssful attempts to perfor m FGM on B .D. Alternatively , Ms. Seck’s risk of pe rsec ution

22The BIA’s de ci si on ad ds no an al y si s t o s ho w itco ns id eredth e ev id en ce

subm it te d b y

Ms . Seck . The BI A on ly dis cu ss edth e ci rcu m st an ces th atcau se d Ms . Seckto lea ve Sen eg al with B .D. It di d n otad dr es s t he ev id en ce tha t p la ces B.D. at g reat er ri skof F GM if sh e returns . The BIA was “ en ti tl edto rel y he av il y on ” th e St at e Dep art m en t’s re po rts ab ou t co nd it io ns in Sen eg al . Reyes -S an ch ezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 36 9 F .3d12 39 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); se e a ls o Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 54 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (s am e). “ Howev er, ‘[u]se o f co un try repo rts can no t subs ti tu te foranan al y si s o f th e uni qu e fac ts of e ach ap pl ic an t’s ca se .’ ” Imelda v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 61 1 F .3d72 4, 7 29 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Git imu v. Holde r , 58 1 F .3d76 9, 7 73 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ). Gene ral in fo rm at io n abo utth e co nd it io ns in a gi ve n c ou nt ry

“ are o nl y us efu l t o t he ex te ntth atth ey co m m en t upo n o r are rel ev an t t o t he hi gh ly spe ci fic qu es ti on of wh ethe r th is in di vi du al ” h as su ffer edor is li ke ly to s uf

fer p ers ecu ti on in a co un try. Ta ng v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 8 F .3d 12 70 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The BI A m us t en ga ge in an in di vi du al iz edan al y si s o f th e ap pl ic an t’s s pe ci fic si tu at io n. Se e Imelda , 61 1 F .3d

could be lowe r if B .D.’s fa mily finds a wa

y to perfor m FGM on B .D. without Ms. Seck’s knowledg e. None theless, B .D.’s risk of F GM provides a rough estimate of the risk that Ms. S eck fac es if she r eturns to Seneg al with B.D . To the extent that these two proba biliti es diffe r, howeve r, this is a fac tual deter mination that the ag ency

should consider in the fir st instance on rema nd. See I NS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S. C t. 353, 355 (2002) (pe r curiam). 23at72 9. Th e IJ an d the BIA m ay no t re ly ent ire ly on S ta te Depa rtment r ep orts whi le fai li ng to co ns id er the cred ib le , sp eci fic ev id en ce tha t B.D.’s ri skof F GM is hi gh er tha n t he ge ne ral po pu la ti on , parti cu la rly in Da ka r.

“ Alt ho ug h t he [BIA] is no t re qu ire d t o d is cu ss ev ery pi ece o f ev id en ce pr es en te d . . . th e [BI A] is requi redto co ns id er al l t he ev id en ce s ub m it te d b y th e ap pl ic an t.” Ta n , 44 6 F .3dat 1 37 6. “ [A] rem an d i s n eces sa ry when th e rec or d su gg es ts th atth e Bo ardfai le d t o c on si de r im po rta ntev id en ce i n t ha t re co rd .” Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 5 (c it in g Ta n , 44 6 F .3dat 1 37 4) . Here, th e rec or d pl ai nl y su gg es ts th e Bo ardfai le d t o c on si de r im po rta ntev id en ce re gard in g B .D.’ s ris k o f FGM an d M s. Se ck ’s con se qu en t ri skof p ro te ct in g h er. “ Bec au se th e fin di ng s o f th e [BI A and ] th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge are i na de qu at e, we are u nabl e to rev ie w th e d en ia l” of M s. Se ck ’s pet it io n fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al . Ta n , 44 6 F.3 d a t 1 37 7; se e a ls o Sa nc he z Ji men ezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 49 2 F .3d12 23 , 12 38 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (rem an di ng be cau se “ th e IJ fai le d t o re nd er a re as on edde ci si on . . . and[di d] no t ap pe ar t o h av e co ns id eredev id en ce i n t he reco rd ”). W e th eref or e rem an d t o t he ag en cy

foritto co ns id er the en ti re re co rdinev al ua ti ng Ms . Seck ’s pe ti ti on . W e d o n otreac h t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r Ms . Seck , as am ot he r who op po se s t he pra ct ic e o f FGM o n h er d au gh te r, fal ls withi n a“pa rti cu la r so ci al 24gr oup” forpu rp os es of wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . Se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A).

Thi s que st io n was no t re ach edby the BIA, an d i t i s m os t ap pr op ria te ly con si de red by the ag en cy

in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. Se e Gon za les v. Th oma s , 54 7 U.S. 1 83 , 18 6– 87 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 61 3, 1 61 4– 15 (20 06 ) (p er cu ria m) (h ol di ng itwas i m pr op er fo r Nin th Cir cu itto de te rm in e th atanali en ’s fam il y co ns ti tu te d a“pa rti cu la r so ci al gr oup” forasylu m

pu rp os es be cau se pro pe r co ur se was t o re m an d i ss ue to Bo ard fo r in it ia l d et erm in at io n) . Upo n re m an d, the BIA sh ou ldad dr es s t hi s i ss ue if ne ces sa ry . C. Ms . Seckrai se s o th er the or ie s o n app eal . She co nt en ds he r rem ov al to Sen eg al wou ldco ns tru ct iv el y de po rt B .D. as wel l. She als o a sk s u s t o re m an d 7

“ fo r co ns id erat io n o f whe th er b ei ng for cedto ab an do n ach il d, i n o rd er t o p ro te ct he r fro m [FGM], con st itut es th e im po si ti onof h arm

ris in g t o t he lev el [of

] pe rs ecu ti on .” Pet ’r Br. at 3 0. Be cau se th es e cl ai m s wer e n otrai se d b efo re the BIA, we la ck

juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the m . Se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ); Amaya - Ms. Seck has stated that she would take he r childre n with her to Seneg al if she is for ced 7 to return ther e. Although the B IA noted that B .D., as a U.S. citiz en, has a

leg al right to remain in the United States eve n if her mother is force d to leave this country , it does not appea r to have relied on this fa ct in its determination of Ms. Seck’s a pplication for withholdingof re moval. Simi larly , the g overnme nt does not argue that this is an alternative basis for de nying Ms. Sec k’s petition for re view. Consequently , we do not conside r wha t effe ct, if any , B.D .’s citizenship, or the unknown whe rea

bouts and presuma

bly undocumented status of B.D .’s father, ha s on Ms. Seck’s pe tition. 25Art un du ag a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m)

(“ W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er a cl ai m rai se d i n ape ti ti onforrev ie w un le ss th e pe ti ti on er h as ex haus te d h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wi thres pe ctth eret o.” ).

IV. W e GRANT Ms . Seck ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w of t he de ni al of h er ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . W e VACATE IN PART th e d eci si on of t he BIA ad dr es si ng he r cl ai m

an d R EMAND forpro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on .

26