NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0416n.06 Filed: Jul y

11, 2008 No. 07-3710 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
ROBI N GOTO SA, Petitioner,

v.
MI CHAEL B. MUK

ASEY, Attorney

Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Re sp on de nts
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : B OG GS, Chi e f Jud g e ; MA RTI N a nd SI L ER, Cir c uit

Judg e s. P ER CURIAM . Petitioner Robin Gotosa (“Gotosa” ) petitions for revie w of an orde r of the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls ( “ B I A” ) d e nyinghis a pp lic a tio n fo r a sylum , w ithho ldi ngof re mov a l,
and pr ote c tio n und e r t

he Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e (t he “ a pp lic a tio n” ). F or

the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , we DENY the pe tition. BA CKGROUND I n 1998, Gotosa, a native of Z imbabwe, leg ally enter ed the United States to attend colleg e. He g ra du a te d f

ro m c oll e g e in 2 00 4, and fi le d the a pp lic a tio n in Oc tob e r of

the same y e ar, wh e n h is st u d en t visa expi red. H e soug ht asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e (“ CA T” ) b a se d o n h is p oli tic a l op ini on : hi s a lle g e d a lli anc e wi th Movement for

Democr atic Chang e (the “MDC”) , a poli ti c a l o r g a n iz a ti o n in Z im b abwe that promotesNo. 07-3710

Gotosa v. Mukase y

- 2 - de moc ratic e le c tio ns and op po se s t he c ountr

y ’s pr e sid e nt, Rob e rt

Mu g a be . Sp e c if

ic a lly , G oto sa
c la ime d th a t in

De c e mbe r 1 99 9 w he n h e re tur ne d to Z imb a

bw e to v isi t hi s b ro the r, Rod ne y Go tos a (“Rodney”), a

g overnme nt-bac ked g ang , the Gre en B ombers, appr oache d them following an MDC meeting that both had attended. The Green Bomber s war ned R odney to stop his pro-MDC ac tiviti es and then le t t h em g o. Gotosa fur ther c laimed that in J uly

2004, the Gre en B ombers deta ined and tortured Rodney

beca use he f ailed to hee d their ea

rlier wa rning reg ardinghis MDC activities. At his imm igr ation hear ing, G otosa prese nted no evidenc e to ver ify his acc ounts of Rodney ’s torture, to esta

blish his or his family ’s member ship i n t h e M DC , or to prove his fe ar of future perse cution. After

making an adve rse c redibility finding , the I mmigration Judge (“I J ”) de nied the Ap pli c a tio n. Go tos a

a ppeal e d to the B I A, wh ic h a do pte d th e I J’s r e a so nin g and a ff ir me d it s decision. DI SCUS SI ON W h e nt h e B IAa d o p t s t h e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o n , a d d i n g i t s o w nc o m m e n t ar y , w e r e v i e w b o thth e B IA and the I J ’s dec isions. Lazer v. Gonzales , 5 0 0 F
. 3 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 4 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c it a ti o n o mi tt e d )
. We revie w the I J ’s fa ctual finding s, including a dv e r s e c r e d ib ility finding s, under the substantial e vidence standard. Hamid v. Gonzale s , 47 8 F .3 d 73 4, 73 6 (6 th Cir
. 20 07 ) (i nte rn a l r e fe re nc e s o mitte d) . T hu s,
we mu s t u

p h o ld th e I J’ s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s if th e y ar e “ s u

p p o rte d b y r e a s o n a

b le , s u b s ta n tial, and probative e vidence on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole.” Lazer , 5 0 0 F. 3 d at 474-75 (c itation omitted). We revie w t he I J ’s l eg al deter minations de novo. Alexandrov v. Gonzales , 442 F.3d 395, 404 (6th Cir. 2006) (c itation omit ted). We ca n only reve rse the B I A or I J ’s dec isions if the evidenceNo. 07-3710

Gotosa v. Mukase y

- 3 - the petitioner prese nts “ not only supports a contr ary conclusion, but indeed c om pe ls it.” Ou da v

IN S , 324 F.3d 445, 451 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (empha sis in original). Th e I J den i e d

t h e A p p l i c a t i o n b e c a us e of mate ri a l di sc re pa

nc ie s b e tw e e n G oto sa ’s state me nts to the asylum officer

and his testimony

at the hea

ring , coupled with his failure to otherwise pr ove his claims. Gotosa testified that his and Rodney ’s encounter with the Green Bombers in 1999 lasted
a pp ro xima te ly thi rt

y min ute s. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, ho we ve r, Go tos a a dmi tte d th a t he pr e vio us ly descr ibed the encounte r as “brie f.” Gotosa also testified that in 2004 the Gre en Bombe rs detaine d Rod ne y fo r a month. H is o ri g ina l st a te me nt t o th e a sylum of fi c e r i nd ic a te d th a t Ro dn e y wa s h e ld for ten da y s. At the hearing , Gotosa claimed that he and his family members were active suppor ters of the MDC. His alleg ed support wa s manifested only in attending the Dec ember 1999 MDC
me e tin g . H e wa s n ot a me mbe r of the MD C des pit e the e xiste nc e of an A me ri c an c ha

pte r. Go tos a
c la ime d to have se nt a

pp ro xima te ly $2 00 to Rod ne y and his fr ie nd s ov e r the y e ars but pr ov ide d o nly
on e re c e ipt

fo r a mon e y or de r o f $ 10 date d a

pp rox im ate ly

on e month b e fo re the he ari ng . G oto sa f a il e d to p r o d u c e c o p ie s o f

h is p ar e n ts ’ o r

Ro dn e y ’ s M D C m e mb e r s h ip c ar d s . H is o th e r b r o th e r, Br ian Gotosa, testified that he neve r sa w M DC corr espondenc e or literature in his pare nts’ home, nor did he e ver c onverse with his parents about the MDC. Gotosa a lso testified that Rodney ref used to leave Z imbabwe be cause he was dedicated t o the M DC’s cause . Howeve r, he orig inally told the asylum officer

that Rodney

ref used to leave Z imbabwe be cause he was still in school and had a
car eer there
. Gotosa ar g ues that the I J incorre ctly admitted into evidence the not es from Gotosa’ s interview w ith the asylum officer . The I J , howeve r, admitted the notes f or impeac hment purposesNo. 07-3710

Gotosa v. Mukase y

- 4 - only and obser

ved that Gotosa c ould not cross examine their author due to the author’s unavailability . The I J did not ex clusively rely on the inconsistencies betwee n the notes and G otosa’s he ari ngte sti mony . M or e ov e r, Go to sa had the op po rt

un ity to d e fe nd

a g a ins t th e state me nts contained in the notes. See A lexandrov at 406-07 (“ [W ]here a he arsa y document is admitted but not primarily relied upon a

nd the [applicant] rece ives the o p p o rt u n ity to rebut the doc ument’s
co n c lu s io n s thr o u g h h is w it n e s s e s , th e f

un d ame n ta l f

a ir n e s s o f th e p r o c e e d in g s h as not bee n impinged.” ). Consequently , the I J did not deny Gotosa due pr ocess of

law sin ce h e wa s not prejudice d by

the admission of the notes. As to Gotosa’s cla ims of withholding of re moval and CAT, whe n an applica nt fails to meet his burden under

the re quirements for asylum, “ the rec ord nece ssarily supports the finding that [t he applicant doe s] not meet the more stringe nt standard of a cle ar pr obability

of per secution re quired for withholding of [removal].” Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 397 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Moreove r, Gotosa fa iled t o p ro ve that the g overnme nt of Z imbabwe wa s looking for him. There w as no ind ic a tio n that it h a d a

ny re a so n to tor

tur e him up on his re tur n. Go tos a , th e re fo re , f

a ile d to e sta

bli sh a g enuine f

ear of future perse cution and his CAT claim. There was no c orrobor ation from the MDC re g ardingRodney ’s activiti es i n the org anization and the only

corr oboration of the family ’s involvement in the MDC came from the f amily members t h em s el v es . There fore , the I J found that Gotosa’ s testimony lacke d cre dibilit y

and wa s not
corr oborate d by

unbi as ed sourc es. The I J ’s cr edibility finding s are rea sonable a nd Gotosa’s inconsistencies we nt to the hear t of his asylum claim. Se e Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925 ( 6th Cir.No. 07-3710

Gotosa v. Mukase y

I n denying G otosa relief

from deportation, we take notice of the continuing de terioration of 1 the political and socia l situations in Z imbabwe, and point Gotosa to 8 U .S.C. § 1229a(c)( 7)(C)( ii), which allows him to reope n his asylum petition “based on cha ng ed country conditions arising in the country of nationality

or the c ountry

to which re moval has been order ed, if such evidence is material and wa s not available a

nd would not have be en discove red at the previous proc eeding .” Howe ver, in Ha rc he nk

o v . I NS , 3 49 F .3 d 4 05 , 4 10 (6t h Cir. 2 00 4) , w e no te d th a t a pe tit ion e r who fi le s a motion to reopen an a sy lum petition “based on cha ng ed count ry conditions cannot re ly on speculative conclusions or m er e assertions of fear of possible perse cution, but instead must offer rea sonably

specific information showing a re al threa t of individual persec ution. The fea red perse cution must relate to an alien i ndividually , not to the popul ation g ener ally .” (inter nal quotation marks and c itations omi tted). - 5 - 20 04 ). T h u s , w e u

p h o l d t h e I J’ s an d

t h e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n s , a s w e ar e n o tc o mp e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e to the contra ry . PETI TI ON DEN I ED. 1