NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0023n.06 No. 12-3226 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT AB DOULAYE SACKO, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE U

NI TED STATES BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEF ORE: COL E and DO NAL D, Circuit J udg es; RUSSEL L , District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Abdoulay e Sacko petitions for re v iew of an order of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appeals (B I A) that a ffirme d an im migr ation judge ’s (I J ) denia l of his application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( CAT). Sacko is a native and citizen of Mauritania. He claims to have enter ed the United States on September 12, 2000. I n Dec ember 2000, Sacko filed an application for asylum, withholding of
remova l, and relief under the CAT, alleg ing that Mauritanian authoritie s h a d a r r ested and imprisoned him, used him as sl ave labor, and forc ibly deporte d him to Seneg al. I n J anuar y 2010, Sacko filed

a supplemental application, making simil ar alleg ations. The I J denied Sacko’s appli ca tion, concluding that he failed to demonstra t e that his asylum application was timely , he did not testify
cre dibly , and he f

ailed to demonstrate entitlement to relief. T he B I A af firmed the I J ’s dec ision.

The Honora

ble Thomas B. Russell, United States Senior District J udg e for the Western * District of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by desig nation.No. 12-3226

Sacko v . Holder On appea l, Sacko argues that his asylum application was timely , that his testimony wa s
cre dible, and that he is entitled to asy lum and withholding of remova l. Where, as here , the BIA does not summarily aff

irm or adopt the I J ’s rea soning and provides an ex planation for its decision, we revie w the B I A’s dec ision as the final ag ency deter mination. Ilic-Lee v. Muk asey , 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007). We revie w leg al conclusions de n o v o an d fa ct ual finding s, including
cre dibilit y deter

minations, for substantial evidenc e. Khozhaynova v. Holder , 641 F.3d 187, 191 (6th Cir. 2011). Under the substantial evidenc e standard, we will uphold administrative finding s of fac t unless “any rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” Bi Xia Qu v. Holder , 618 F.3d 602, 605- 06 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B) ). We lack jurisdiction to revie w the denial of Sacko’s asylum application as untimely beca use he does not raise any leg al or constitutional challeng e to the BIA’s decision on that issue. See Fang Huang v. M

ukasey , 523 F.3d 640, 650- 51 (6th Cir. 2008). To qualify for withholding of remova l, a n applicant must de monstrate that it is more likely t h an not that, if returne d to the country of remova l, his life or fre edom would be threa tene d o n
acc ount of his rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, o r p o l i t ical opinion. Vincent v. Holder , 632 F.3d 351, 354 (6th Cir. 2011). I f an applicant demonstrates that he has suffe red past perse cution in the country of remova l on acc ount of a protec ted g round, we employ

a rebuttable presumption that the applicant’ s life or fre edom would be threa tened in the future. Id. at 354-55. The I J ’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination was supported by substantial evidenc e, s ee Khozhaynova , 641 F.3d at 193, and the deter mination was based on issues that g o t o t h e hear t of -2-No. 12-3226

Sacko v . Holder Sacko’s claim of perse cution, see Singh v. Ashcroft , 398 F.3d 396, 402 (6th Cir. 2005). In his second asylum application and during his te stimony , Sacko asser ted that, in 1989, Mauritanian authorities

arr ested him a

nd his f amily and detained them for seven months. In his initial asylum a pplication, howeve r, and in his asy lum inter view, which the I J and BIA proper ly considere d g iven the asylum office r’s detailed assessment that contained questions and answe rs from the interview, see Koulibal y
v. Mukase y , 541 F.3d 613, 620-21 (6th Cir. 2008), Sacko asser ted that the detention lasted only two
wee ks. Sacko also testified that he was not beate n during his arr est an d detention, althoug h he alleg ed in his second asy lum application that members of the Mauritanian milit ary beat him with the bottom part of a g un. He further claimed during his asylum interview that he was beate n with batons. Finally , Sacko’s asy lum a pplications and his te stimony wer e inconsistent conce rning who transporte d him and his family to Seneg al afte r they wer e rele ased from their detention and how they enter ed into that country
. Sacko failed to pr ovide an adequate explanation for the discrepa ncies in his statements and applications for relief

. Given the proper adver se cre dibilit y deter mination and the lack of other evidenc e supporting Sacko’s claims that he suffe red past perse cution in Mauritania and that his life or fre edom would be threatened if remove d to Mauritania, he d i d n o t est ablish that he is entitled to withholding of
remova l. See El-Moussa v. Holder , 569 F.3d 250, 257 (6th Cir. 2009). Sacko waived any challeng e to the denial of relief under the CAT by failing to raise that issue on appe al

. See Shkabari v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 324, 327 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Acc ording ly , we dismiss Sacko’s petition for revie w insofar as he seeks revie w of the denial of his asylum application as untimely , and we deny the petition in all other respe cts. -3-