T he H onorabl e Jon P
. M cCal l a, U ni t ed S t ates C hi ef D i s t r i ct Ju dge f

or t he W es t er n D i s t r i ct of T enn es s ee, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0039n.06 No. 08-3856 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT MUSA KAMARA, Petitioner,
v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER O F THE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS OPI NI ON

Before: BOGG S and GILMA N, C ir cuit Judges; and McC ALLA, Chief District Judge. * RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. Musa Kamar a, a 34-y ear -old native and citizen of Sie rr a L e on e , a pp e a ls a de c isi on by the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls (BI A) th at den ie d h is applicatio n for a sylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the United Nation’s Convention Ag ain s t Torture (CAT). His c laims are pr imarily based on the mistreatment he
a lle g e dly su ffered aft er r e fu sin g to j oin a re be l g ro up in S ie rr a

L e on e . F or

the re a so ns se t f

or th below, we DENY the petition for re view.
I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al b ac kgr oundNo. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-2- Kamar a wa s born in Sierra L eone in October 1975. (App. 89-90) He lived with his mother and father on a

fruit and livestock far

m, but he testified that his family had “no mone y .” (A

pp. 92) I n 2000, four r ebels from the Revolutionary United Fr ont ( RUF) came to K amar a’s home and aske d his father for money

and diamonds. (App. 93, 95, 107) After his fathe r said that they did not have any money or diamonds, t he re bels beat his father “ very bad[ly ].” (App. 93) Ka

mara said that the rebe ls targ eted his home be cause his father sold goats and sheep. ( App. 99) The RUF rebe ls then took Kamara from the f arm, put him in a ca

r, and dr ove him to a prison. (App. 96-97) Kamar a testified that at the prison, the g uards b ea t h i m ev eryday , threw him to the fl o o r , an d u s e d a l ar g e p i e c e o f w o o d t o b e a t o n e o f h i s l e g s . ( A p p . 9 8 , 1 0 0 ) D u r i ng his imprisonment, the RUF re peate dly asked Kamara to join them, but he refuse d. (App. 100) K amar a was he ld in the prison for four m onths until soldiers from Guinea came and took him back to Guine a, wher e he sta

y ed for two day s. (App. 100, 103) Ac c or din g to K a mara ,“ [t]his on e old g uy” in G uin e a

g a ve him mon e y and

se nt h im t o M a li, wher e anothe r individual g ave him money to fly to the Unit ed S tates. (App. 104-105) After Kamar a
arr ived in the United States using a fra udulent passport in Aug ust 2001, a man name d Malik, who had pre viously

lived near Kamar a’s family in Sierra L eone, told Kamar a that his fathe r had pa ssed
awa y afte r t he rebels t ook Kamar a. (App. 113) Kamar a’s mother is curre ntly

missing. (App. 145) B. P roce dural h istory Kamar a timely filed an asylum a pplication, in w hich he claimed past perse cution on acc ount of ra ce, r elig ion , an d n ati onality , but did not indi cate perse cution on acc ount of membership in aNo. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-3- particula r social gr oup or pol itical opinion. (App. 148) A t the J une 2006 mer its hearingbefor e an immigration judge ( I J ), howe ver, Kamara ’s counsel indicated that Ka mara was c laiming pe rsec ution
on acc ount of a political opinion imputed to him afte r he r efuse d to join the RUF. (App. 135) The I J ultimately

found Kamara

to be not c redible beca

use he g ave va g ue and inc onsistent testimony , did not know the answe rs to important questions such as what the acr ony m RUF stands for, and g ave answe rs that seeme d unrea sonable under the circ umstances. ( App. 45-48) Mor eover , the I J con c lud e d tha t eve n if he we re c re dib le , Kamara ha d not e sta bli sh e d p a st p e rs e c uti on

or a we llfounded f ear of future perse cution, primarily beca use he did not establish t he required nex us. That is, Kamara

did not prove that the RUF imputed a political opinion to hi m and that his mistreatment was “ on acc ount of” this imputed politi cal opinion. (App. 51- 52) Th e I J als o f

ound that K a mara ’s fe ar o f f

utu re pe rs e c uti on

wa s no t obje c tiv e ly

re a so na ble beca use S ierra L eone is now a

signific antly

safe r country

than when K amar a lef

t in 2000. (App. 51) Be cause Kamar a had not established elig ibilit y for a sy lum, the I J denied the w ithholding of re moval
a s w e ll. F ina lly , th e I J fou nd th at Kam ara wa s n ot e lig ibl e fo r p ro te c tio n und e r t he CA T b e c a

us e Kamar a’s de tainment by the RUF and acc ompanying beating s did not rise to the level of torture and did not establish that he was more likely than not to be torture d if he we re r eturne d to Sierra L eone. (App. 55) The B I A dismissed Kamara ’s appea l. Even afte r g iving Kamar a the be nefit of the doubt by assuming that he was c redible, the BIA ag ree d with the I J that Kamar a had failed to e stablish a nexus betwee n his mist reatment and an imputed political opinion. (App. 7) I t also found t hat he had notNo. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-4- established a r easona

ble fe ar of future pe rsec ution, eligibility for withholding of re moval, or any basis for pr otection under the CAT. Fina lly , it r ejec ted Kamar a’s argument that various err ors the I J alleg edly

committed during the merits hea ring denied him due pr ocess. ( App. 8-9)
II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review “B eca use the B I A adopted the I J ’s dec ision with additi onal comment ar y , we r eview the decision of the I J , as suppl emented by the BI A, as the final a dminist rative or der.” Ceraj v . Mukase y , 511 F.3d 583, 588 ( 6th Cir. 2007). We review the fac tual deter minations o f t he I J under the “substantial evidenc e” te st. Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Under this standar d, we will not reve rse a

fac tual deter

mination u n l es s “t h e evide nce not only supports a contra

ry
c o n c lus ion , b ut compe ls it.” Ma rk u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 80 F .3 d 9 82 , 9 86 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) (e mph a sis in orig inal). B . As y l u m Kama r a f ir s t c la im s a s y lum b a s e d

o nth e p a s t p e r s e c u ti o nth a t h e a ll e g e d ly s u f f e r e d a f ter ref using to joi n the R UF. An alien who s eeks asy lum must establish that he meets the def inition of
a “ re fugee,” wh ic h me ans a pe rs on un a ble or un wi lli ngto r e tur

n to his c ountr

y be c a us e of pa st p e r s e c u t i o no r

a “ w e l l

- f o u n d e d f e ar ” o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n“ o na c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, membership in a pa

rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” I mmigration an d Nationality Act (I NA) § 101( a)( 42); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42). The burden of proof is on Kamara

to establish that heNo. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-5- meets this definition. See IN A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i ) ; 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i )
. B e c a u s e t h e B IA
ana ly zed Ka mara ’s c la ims on

the a ssumpt ion that hi s te sti mony wa s c re dib le , w e wi ll d o s o a s w e ll. The I J and the B I A conc luded that Kama ra ha d not e stablished past perse cution beca use he did not demonstrate a c onnection betwe en his mistreatment and one of the five protec ted statutory g rounds. These finding s are supported by substantial evidence . The re cord r efle cts two instances of mistreatment suff

ere d by Kamar a—first, whe n the RUF came to his home a nd beat his father, a

nd second, w hen the RUF detained and beat Kamar a for four months. Kamar a pre sented no e vidence that e ith e r i ns tanc e of

mis tr e a tment was mo ti vate d b y a po lit ic a l op ini on

he ld b y Ka mara or his fa mil y , w he the r a c tua l or

imp ute d. Ra the r, Ka

mara te sti fi e d th a t th e RU F re be ls c a me to his ho me beca use they viewed his fa

mily as we althy
. Moreove r, Kamara ’s conf in em en t and beatings at the prison wer e aimed sole ly at forc ing Kamar a to join the RUF. The evidenc e therefor e establishes that Kamar a ex perie nced mistreatment
as a result of the RUF ’s po lit ic a l op ini on s, no t his ow n. Whe n the Sup re me Court re ve rs e d the Ni nth Circuit’s holding that mistreatment by Guatema lan g uerr illas in a n attempt to rec ruit an individual
e sta bli sh e s p e rs e c uti on

“ on a c c ount o f” po lit ic a l op ini on , it ma de thi s sa

me dis tin c tio n: As for the Court of Appea ls’ conclusion that the g uerr illas’ “motive in car rying out the kid na pp ingis p oli tic a l” : I t a

pp are ntl y me ant b y thi s tha t th e g ue rr ill a s se e k to fi ll the ir ra nk s in or de r t o c arr

y on the ir wa r again st the g ov e rnme nt a nd purs ue the ir political goa ls. But that does not re nder the forc ed re cruitm en t “p er secution on a c c ount o f .
. . poli tic a l op ini on .”
. . . T he or din a ry me anin g of

the ph ra se “per secution on ac co u nt of . . . political opinion” in § 101(a)( 42) is perse cution on acc ount of the v ic tim’s po lit ic a l op ini on , n ot t he pe rs e c uto r’ s. I f a

Na zi r e g ime pe rs e c ute s Jew s, it i s n ot, wi thi n th e or din ary me aning of lan g ua g e , e ng a g ingin pe rs e c uti on on a c c ount of po lit ic a l op ini on ; a nd if a fu nd a me nta lis t Mo sle m r e g ime pe rs e c ute s d e moc rats, it i s not en g a g ing in pe rs e c uti on on a c c ount o f r e lig ion . T hu s,No. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-6- the me re e xiste nc e of

a g e ne ra lize d “ po lit ic a l” mot ive un de rl y in g t he g ue rr ill a s’ fo rc ed rec ruitment is inadequate to e stablish (and, indee d, g oes fa r to ref ute) . . . perse cution on account of po lit ic a l op ini on , a s § 10 1( a )( 42 ) r e qu ir e s. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992) (emphasis in orig inal) (inter nal citations omitted). K a m ar a ’ s a s yl u m c l a i m i s b ar r e d b y El ias -Z

ac ar ias beca

use he ha s prese nted no evidenc e
a s to the mot ive of

the RU F in d e ta ini ngand be a tin g him oth e r t ha n th a t th e y

we re tr y ingto r e c ru it h im
. A s a

r e s u lt , K ama

r a is n o t e li g ib le f

o r a s y lum b a s e d

o np a s t p e r s e c u ti o nb e c a u s e h e h a s not established that any alleg ed past perse cution was “ on acc ount of” his political opinion or any other protec ted g round. Kamar a next claims asy lum based on a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution by

the RUF if he we re to r e tur

n to Sie rr a

L e on e . ( Pe t’ s B r. 45 ) B ut be c a us e Ka mara did no t de mon str a te pa st perse cution, he is not entitled t o a p re s u m p t ion of a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. See Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 389 (6th Cir. 1998)
. A well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution “must be both subjectively g enuine a

nd objective l y re asonable .” Ab ay v . A sh c ro ft , 368 F.3d 634, 637 (6th Cir. 2004) (c itation omit ted). The finding s of the I J and the B I A that Kama ra doe s not have a

well-founde d fea

r of f uture perse cution are supported by substantial evidenc e. Although Sierra L eone is not y et entire ly fre e of political strife, its conditions have sig nificantly improved si nce the end of the civil war in 2002, and the RU F no w wi e lds su

bs tanti a lly le ss po we r. (A pp . 15 9- 17 4) Mo re imp or tantl y , K a mara

ha s a g a in fa ile d to me e t th e ne xus r e qu ir e me nt. Th a t is , h e ha s su bmi tte d no ev ide nc e to d e mon str a te that if he we re pe rsec uted in Sierra L eone by the R UF u p o n h i s return, it would be “ on acc ount of” aNo. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-7- political opinion that he holds
. When asked why the RUF r ebels would wa nt to hurt him, Kamara at first said “I

don’t know,” but then a

nswere d “[b] eca

use . . . I don’t want to join them.” (App. 106) Th is e vid e nc e is n ot s uf

fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli sha we ll- fo un de d fe ar of futur e pe rs e c uti on be c a us e
su c h f utu re mis tr e a tme nt w ou ld b e on a c c ount of the pe rs e c uto r’ s p oli tic a l op ini on , n ot t he vic tim ’s
. See Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 482 (re jecting a claim of well-founded fe ar of future pe rsec ution that
wa s b a se d on the a

pp lic ant’ s re fu sa l to f

ig ht w ithg ue rr ill a

fo rc e s in Gu a te ma la ); see also Lumaj v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 574, 578 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (re jecting a cl ai m of we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution b ec ause a lthough a widespre ad thre at of violenc e existed in Albania, there was no evidenc e that individuals were targ eted on political g rounds). Moreove r, Kamara

did not establish that he woul d b e s i n gled out for mistreatment among the g ener al population. W h en aske d why he would have problems if he r eturne d to Sierra L eone, he said “ [t ]hey still have bad people there ” and that a lot of people g o missing. (App. 106) Kamar a, howeve r, “c annot rely on speculative conclusions or mere asser tions of fea

r of possible per secution, but i n s t ea d must offer r easona bly specific information showing a re al threat of individual perse cution.” See M

apouya v. G onzales , 487 F.3d 396, 412 ( 6t h C i r. 2007) (e mphasis added) (citations omitted). He has not satisfied t his standard. T he re cord is devoid of evidenc e that he f

ace s an individualized threat beyond the g ener al threat to the population fr o m “bad people.” K amar a there fore has not met his burden to prove elig ibilit y fo r as y lum based on a w ell-founde d fea r of future pe rsec ution.No. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-8- On a pp e a l, K a mara

argue s f or the fi rs t tim e that he is a lso e lig ibl e fo r a sylum ba se d on pa st perse cution and a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution on acc ount of his me mbership in the social g ro up of pe op le pe rc e ive d a s w e a lth y in S ie rr a L e on e by a bu siv e and

c or ru pt g ov e rnme nt s e c ur ity fo rc e s. (P e t’ s B r. 37 ) K a mara ha s f a ile d to a dmi nis tr a tiv e ly

e xha us t th is a rgume nt, ho we ve r , b e c a

us e he did no t r a ise it i n h is b ri e f be fo re the B I A. We t he re fo re la c k ju

ri sd ic tio n to re vie w t

his c la im. See I NA § 2 42 (d )( 1) ; 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (d )( 1) ; Ra ma ni v . A sh c ro ft , 378 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that “only

cl ai m s p ro perly

prese nted to the B I A and c onsidered on the ir merits ca n be revie wed by

this court”). Be cause Kamar a did not demonstrate his e ligibility for a sy lum, his claim for withholding of
remova l fails. I f an a

pplicant has not established pa st persec ution, a claim for w ithholding re quires evidenc e that “it is more likely th an n o t t h at he or

she would be pe rsec uted on ac count of ra ce, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticul ar soc ial g roup, or political opinion upon remova l.” 8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b )( 2) . T his sta nd ard is mor e de mand ingtha

n th e sta nd ard re qu ir e d to e sta

bli sh
a sylum
. Sarr v. Gonzales , 485 F.3d 354, 362 (6th Cir. 2007). Kama ra did not mee t the burden of showing future pe rsec ution for asylum purposes a nd there fore cannot mee t the highe r burde n neede d to qualify for withholding of re moval. See id. (r e je c tin g a c la im fo r wit

hh old ing of

re mov a l be c a

us e the applica

nt did not meet the more lenie nt standard f or asy lum). C. P r ot e c ti on und e r th e CA T I n order to qualify

for pr otection under

the CAT, Kamara must demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that he would be torture d if he we re r emoved to Sierra L eone. Se e Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft ,No. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-9- 388 F.3d 941, 951 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2)) . Kamar a supports his CAT claim with two piece s of evidenc e. He first relies on the 2005, 2006, and 2007 State De partment Country Reports for Sierra L eone, which he claims confirm “the risk of torture” that he fac es if he returns to Sierr a L eone. ( Pet’s Br . 33) As an initial matte r, ev en i f these re ports establish a ris k of tor tur e a s K a mara

c la ims , th is d o e s n o t m e an t h a t i t i s “ m o r e l i k e l y t h an n ot” tha t he will be tortured, pa rticularly beca use the problems enumer ated in the r eports we re listed as e x ceptions to the g ener al statement that “ [t ]he g overnme nt ge nera lly

respe cted the huma

n rig hts of its citiz ens.” (App. 159) Moreove r, many of the conc erns listed in the repor ts w ould e ither not a

pply to Kamar a or w ould not rise to the level of torture. Ka

mara , for e x ample, would not be subje ct t o ch i l d labor, fe male g enital mutilation, or
a bu se a s a jou

rn a lis t. An d oth e r pr ob le ms me nti on e d in t he re po rt s, su c h a s p oo r p ri so n c on dit ion s, police thef

t and extortion, a corrupt j udiciary , and ins ufficie nt leg al represe ntation, g ener ally do not amount to torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (2) (“Torture is an ex treme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include le sser for ms of . . . punishment that do not amount to t orture.” ). Kam ar a n e xt r e li e s o nh is p a s t m is tr e a tm e n t w h il e b e in g h e ld a t t h e RU F p r is o nin

Sierra L eone. ( Pet’s Br . 31) Even a ssuming that this past mistreatment constituted torture, it does not establish that it is “more likely than not ” that Kamar a would be tortured in the future . Kamar a fa iled to point to any

evidenc e that sug g ests that this past mis treatment would be re peate d. I n particula r, Ka mara ha s pre se nte d no ev ide nc e to re bu t the g ov e rnme nt’ s pro of re g ard ingthe imp ro ve me nt i n country conditions since 2001, the ef forts of the Sier

ra L eone g overnme nt to protec t its citi zens fromNo. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-10- the small remainingremna nts of the R UF, the failure of t he R UF to g ain any political power in re cent elec tions, and the succe ssful trials of the leade rship of the RUF , all of which sug g est that Kama ra does not fac e torture by

the RUF if he wer e to re turn. (App. 159, 160, 163, 167, 168) D. K am ar a’ s due pr oc e ss a r gum e nt s Be y ond challeng ing the decisions of both the I J and the B I A, Kama ra a rg ues that t he proce eding s violated his Fifth Amendme nt due proc ess rig hts. Due pr o ce s s re q u ires that aliens
rec eive a full and fair hear ing. A due proce ss violation occur s, howeve r, only wher e “the pr ocee ding was so funda

mentally unfair that the alien wa s preve nted from r easonab l y p rese nting his ca se.” Ha ssa n v . G on za le

s, 403 F.3d 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 904 (9 th C ir . 2 00 0) ). I n o rd e r t o s uc c e e d o n h is due pr oc e ss c la im, Ka mara mus t de mon str a te “substantial prejudice .” Gi sh ta v . G on za le

s, 40 4 F .3 d 9 72 , 9 79 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . T o me e t th is sta nd ard , h e mus t sh owtha t an y a lle g e d d

ue pr oc e ss e rr or s a c tua lly a ff e c te d th e ou tc ome of

his proce eding s. Id
. Kamar a first a

rg ues that the I J and the B I A violated his due proc ess rig hts “by pre- judging the c a se ” and “ by iss uin g de c isi on s wh ic h la c k c le ar a dmi nis tr a tiv e fi nd ing s. ” (P e t’ s B r. 23 ) T he se claims are wi thout merit. There is no evidence that either the I J or the B I A pre judge d the ca se. Simi larl y , b oth

the I J and the B I A i ssu e d c le ar and we ll- re a so ne d o pin ion s th a t in c lud e d c itatio ns to the re levant statutes and case law, as well as specific ref ere nces to the testimony

and other evidenc e prese nted at Ka

mara ’s merits hea

ring
.No. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-11- Next, Kamara

alleg es that the B I A erred in “ig noring defic iencies” in the merits hear ing transcr ipt. (Pet’s Br . 23) The tr anscr ipt does ref lect that cer t ai n re sponses by Kamar a we re “indiscer nible” to the t ra n s cr iber. B ut in some instances, the I J or Kamara ’s counse l followed up
o nt h e i n d i s c e r

n i b l e r e s p o n s e w i t h a

s u b s e qu e n t qu e s t i o n t h a t u l t i m a t e l y c l ar i f i e d t h e r e s p o n s e . In
mos t of the oth e r i ns tanc e s, the i nd is cern ib le re sp on se s a re ir re le va nt t o th e e vid e nc e ne e de d to establish Kamar a’s c laims, rela ti n g in s te a d to the leg al status of his wife, K amar a’s e ducation, money he re ceive d from ce rtain individuals once he arr ived in the United States, the c onversation he had in the United States in which he lear ned that his fathe r wa s dead, or Kamar a’s c redibility . The c ore part of Kamar a’s story

—that the RUF came to his home beca use they thought h i s fa m i l y was
wea lthy , that the RUF be at his father , and that they took Kamar a to a pr ison where he wa s held and beate n for f

our months beca

use he r efuse d to join them—is clea r fr om the transcr ipt. Contrary to Kamar a’s a ssertions, there fore , none of the transcr ipt deficienc ies aff ecte d the outcome o f h is c a s e . T h e y d o n o t r e late to th e RU F ’ s mo ti v e in c o mi n g to K a ma r a’s home a nd be a tin g his fathe r. No r d o th e y be ar o n w hy

the RU F de ta ine d a

nd be a t K a mara

fo r f our m on ths
. F ina lly , th e y

are ir re le va nt t o w he the r K a mara

wo uld be sin g le d o ut f

or tor tur e by the RU F if

he is returne d to Sierra L eone. I n his final argument on appea l, Kamar a contends that the I J and the B I A er red in not g iving
any we ig ht t o a le tte r fr om his do c tor that sta te s tha t the sc ars on Ka mara ’s bo dy

are c on sis te nt w ith his having rec eived multiple beating s. (App. 154-55) But this al leg ed er ror did not pre

judice Ka mara be c a us e the le tte r do e s no t a dd re ss a ny of the c ri tic a l la

ps e s in his c la ims . K a mara ’s pa st-No. 08-3856

Kamara v. Holder

-12- pe rs e c uti on

c la im f a ils no t be c a

us e the mis tr e a tme nt h e e xpe ri e nc e d w a s in sig nif ic ant, bu t be c a

us e he fa iled to establish a nexus b et we en t h at mistreatment and a ny imputed politi cal opinion. Simi larly , Kamar a did not demonstrate a well-founde d fea

r of future perse cution beca use of the la ck of a ne xus to any ind ivi du a lize d thr e a t. F ina lly , his CA T c la im fa ils be c a us e the Countr

y Re po rt s show improved conditions within Si err a L eone a nd demonstrate that the RUF re tains littl e powe r. Th e se we re the c ri tic a l la ps e s in Ka mara ’s c lai ms, and

the do c tor ’s le tte r a dd

re sse s n on e of

the m. Kamar a thus has not demonstrate d prejudice as a r esult of this alleg ed er ror.
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we DENY Kamar a’s pe tition for review
.