NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 07a0690n. 06 Fi l ed: Sept ember 25, 2007 N o. 06- 3996 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
S AM R F AI K HANO NA, P eti ti o n er,
v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls

/ B efore: G U Y , R O G E R S , an d M C K E A G U E , C i rcu i t Jud ges. P ER CURI AM
. P et i t i onerSam rFai k H anona s eeks r evi ew of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) or deraff i r m i ng t he i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s ( I J ) deci s i on, w hi ch deni ed hi s r eques tforas y l um , w i t hhol di ng of depor t at i on, and r el i ef unde r t he C onvent i on Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( CA T )
. We d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w f

o rt h e r e a s o n s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w. I. H anona i s a 27- y ear - ol d s i ngl e m al e, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I r aq, and a mem berof t he C hal dean C hr i s t i an r el i gi on. H i s m ot her par t i ci pat ed i n t he A s s yr i an D emocr at i c M ovement ( A D M ) i n I r aq, and w as arr es t ed t hr ee t i m es byt he form erB aathi s tgovernm entforher pol i t i cal aff

i l i at i on. A ccor di ng t o H anona, Saddam H us s ei n’ s B aathi s tgo v ern m ent
cons i der ed mem ber s of t he A D M t r ai t or s and t ar get ed C hr i s t i ans forper s ecut i on.No. 06-3996 2

H a n o n a a n d h is f

a m il y m o v e d to Jo rd a n in 1 9 9 5 . A t so m e p o in t af ter h e m o v e d to J or dan, H anona j oi ned t he A D M . I n Sept ember of 2002, H anona metw i t h a s eni orm ember of t he A D M , w ho i nfo rm ed H ano na thatH ano na’s nam e w as on a li sti n B agh dad of those t ar get ed foras s as s i nat i o n b y the B aathi s tgovernm ent . H anona, fea r i ng forhi s l i fe, pai d a
s m uggl er t o hel p hi m get t o t he U ni t ed St at es . H e tr avel ed t o T ur keyand then t o M exi co on a fa l s e Spani s h pas s por t . H e appl i ed foras y l um i n t he U ni t ed St at es w hi l e i n M exi co. H e ent er ed t he U ni t ed S t at es at San Y s i dr o, C al i for ni a, on O ct ober 8, 2002. H e w as
s er ved thatdayw i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppearchar gi ng hi m w i t h r emov ab il i t yfr om t he U ni t ed St at es , underI N A § 212( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , as an al i en w ho att h e ti m e o f appl i cat i on for admi s s i on w as not i n pos s es s i on of a vi s a, pas s por t , orot hert r avel document
. O n M ay27, 2 0 0 3 , H a n o n a a p p e a re d b e f o re a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e in D e tro it. H e a d m itt e d th e f a c ts
c o n t a i n e d i n t h e No t i c e t o Ap p e a r , c o n c e d e d r e mov a b i l i t y , a n d a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m,
w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T . H anona s ought asy l um bas ed on t hr ee gr o u n d s: ( 1) m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup; ( 2) r el i gi on; and ( 3) pol i t i cal opi ni on. T he I J deni ed al l of H anona’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef and pr ot ect i on. T he I J cons i der ed H an ona’ s as y l um appl i cat i on; hi s l engthyaff i davi tacc om pany i ng t he appl i cat i on; t he t es t i m ony of H anona, H anona’ s m ot her , and H anona’ s father ; and s ever al new s paperar t i cl es
a n d c o u n t r y r e p o rt s . T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t H a n o n a h a d n o t s h o w n p a s t p e rs e c u tio n , a
cr edi bl e fea r of futur e per s ecut i on, ora l i kel i hood of bei ng t or tur ed i f r etur ned t o I r aq. T heNo. 06-3996 3

H an on a’ s m othe r, f

athe r, an d y oung er sibl in g s hav e be en grant ed a sylum in th e Uni te d S tate s. H is 1 sibling s’ asylum

applications were deriv ativ e of the mother’s. H anon a w as o v er 21 when his mother applied for asylum

and therefo re his applicatio n co uld n ot be deriv ativ e of his mother’s. I J det er m i ned t hat H anona w i s hed t o be r euni t ed w i t h hi s par ent s and s i bl i ngs i n M i chi gan , 1 butdi d notqual i fyfor as y l um . H i s fea r s of “pe r s ecut i on” bec aus e of the di s or der l ys i tuat i on i n I r aq w er e t he s ame fear s fac ed byal l I r aqi s and r es ul t ed fr om t he cur rent s t at e of l aw l es s nes s i n I r aq and notfr om per s ecut i on bas ed on anypr ot ect ed fa ct or . H anona a ppeal ed t o t he B I A , ar gui ng t hatt he IJ e rred in fi ndi ng t hatH anona l acke d cr edi bi l i t y , t he I J w as bi as ed and mi s i nt erpr et ed the fa ct s and evi dence , and t he re s pondent had est abl i s hed t hathe has a w el l
- founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i n I r aq. T he B I A aff

i r m ed t he IJ ’ s deci s i on and di s m i s s ed H anona’ s appea l
. I tconcl uded t hat th e IJ d id n o t a c tu a lly m a k e a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty f in d in g , H a n o n a d id n o t e sta b lish a w e llfo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n in Iraq , an d H an o n a f ail ed to su b stan ti ate h is cl aim s tha t th e IJ
w as bi as ed or m i s i nt erpr et ed t he evi dence
. O n pet i t i on t o t hi s cour t , H anona a r gues t hathe
s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on and has a w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. II. Th i s c o u r th a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r p e t i t i o n e r ’ s r e q u e s t f o r a s y l u m pu r s u a n t t o 8 U. S
. C. § 1252( a) ( 1)
. W e m u s tuphol d t he B oar d’ s deci s i on i f i tw as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e . Mo sta

fa v . A sh c ro

ft , 395 F. 3d 622, 624 ( 6t h C i r . 2005)
. T he s ubs t ant i al evi dence
s t a n d a r d me a n s t h a twe u p h o l d t h e Boa r d ’ s f i n d i n g s a s l o n g a s t h e ya r e “ s u p p o r t e d by
r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” I NS
v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). W e m a y n o t r e v e rse th e B IA b e c a u se w e w o u ldNo. 06-3996 4

have r eac hed anotherconcl us i on, bu t o n lyi f t he evi dence compel s a di ffe r entconcl us i on. Kl a wi t t e rv . I

NS , 9 7 0 F . 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 -52 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ). A . A s yl um T h e r e s o l u t i o n o f

a p e t i t i o n e r ’ s r e q u e s tf o ra s yl u m i n v o l v e s a t w o - p a r ti n q u i r y. Mi kh a i l e v i t c h v . I

NS , 1 4 6 F. 3d 384, 389 ( 6t h C i r . 1998)
. A pet i t i onerm us ts how t hathe qual i fi es as a “r efuge e” a s defi ned i n 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) , and thatt he A t t or ney G e n e ra l sh o u ld e x e rc is e h is d is c re tio n to a p p ro v e h is a p p lic a tio n . I d. R eg ard ing the f

ir st pa rt
o f th e in q u iry , “re f

u g e e ” is d e f

in e d a s “a n a lien w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to h is hom e countr y‘ beca us e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l
- founded fea r of per s ecut i on on acc ountof
rac e, rel igion , n ati o n ali ty , m em b ersh ip in a p artic u la r s o cial gro u p , o r po li ti ca l op inion
. ’” E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U . S
. at 48 1 (qu o ti n g 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 (1)(4 2 )(A )). “A n appl i cantforas y l um bear s t he bur den of es t abl i s hi ng t hathe ors he qual i fi es as
a re f u g e e ‘e ith e r b e c a u se h e h a s s u f f e re d a c tu a l p a st p e rse c u tio n o r b e c a u s e h e h a s a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. ’ ” Mi khai l evi t ch , 1 4 6 F .3 d a t 3 8 9 ( q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 208. 13( a)
- ( b) ( 199 7 ))
. T o s how he has a w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, t he
a p p lica n t “c a n n o t r e ly on sp e c u lativ e c o n c lu sio n s o r m e re a ss e rtio n s o f f e a r o f p o ss ib le per s ecut i on, but i ns t ead m us t offe r r eas onabl y s peci fi c i nfor m at i on s how i ng a re al t hr eatof i ndi vi dual per s ecut i on. ” Ha r c h e n ko v . I NS , 379 F. 3d 405, 410 ( 6t h C i r . 2004)
. T he fe arof p e rs e c u tio n m u s t b e b o th s u b je c tiv e ly g e n u in e a n d o b je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le
. Pe r ko v i c v . I NS , 33 F. 3d 615, 620- 21 ( 6th C ir
. 1 9 94)
. “The t es t i m onyof t he appl i cant , i f cr edi bl e, m aybe
s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he bur den of pr oof w i t houtcorr obor at i on. ” 8 C
. F. R . § 12 0 8
. 1 3 (a).No. 06-3996 5

N onethel es s , w e have uphel d t he B I A ’ s rul e that“w her e i ti s r eas o n ab le to expec t
corr obor at i ng evi dence
. . . [t ] he abs ence of s uch corr obor at i ng evi dence can l ead t o a fi ndi ng t hatan appl i cant has fai l ed t o m eet herbur den of pr oof. ” D o ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F. 3d 379, 382 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) ( i nt ern al q uot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. W e have not ed that “s uppor t i ng document at i on m us tbe pr ovi ded onl yi f i ti s of t he t ype t hat w oul d nor m al l ybe
cr eat ed oravai l abl e i n t he part i cul arcountr yand i s acc es s i bl e t o t he al i en, s uch as t hr ough fr i ends , r el at i ves , orco- w or ker s . ” I d. at382- 83 ( i nt erna l quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. “The appr opr i at e i nqui r y i s w hether t he appl i cabl e evi dence ‘ w as s uch thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi nder
w oul d have t o concl ude t hat t he r equi s i t e fea r of per s ecut i on exi s t ed. ’ ” Mi khai l evi t ch , 146 F. 3d at388 ( quot i ng E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U . S
. at 48 1 ). A n appl i cantw ho e s t a b l i s h e s p a s tp e r s ecut i on i s pr es um ed t o have a w el l
- founded f ear
o f fu ture pe rsec u ti o n . 8 C
. F . R . § 2 0 8
. 1 3 (b)(1 ). T h e IN S m ay reb u t the pre su m p ti o n o f f u ture per s ecuti on bys how i ng bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hat“[t ] her e has been a fundament al change i n ci r cumst ance s s uch t hat t he appl i cantno l ongerhas a w el l
- founded f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n i n t h e a p p l i c a n t ’ s c o u n t r y o f n a t i o n a l i t y . ” 8 C. F . R. § 2 0 8
. 1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ( A) (20 0 4 ).1. P as t P ers ecut i on A tt he out s et w e not e t hat H anona di d not chal l enge the I J ’ s pas tper s ecut i on fi ndi ng b e f o re th e B IA a n d th e re f o re w e m a yn o t re v iew th e iss u e . “[ O ]n ly c la im s p ro p e rly pr es ent ed t o t he B I A and cons i der ed on thei rm er i t s ca n b e revi ew ed byt hi s cour ti n an i m m i gr at i on appea l
. ” R a m a n i v. A sh c ro ft , 378 F. 3d 554, 560 ( 6t h C i r . 2004)
. U nders ect i onNo. 06-3996 6

242( d) ( 1) of t he I N A , “[a ] cour t m ayr evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval onl yi f— ( 1) t he al i en h a s e x h a u s t e d a l l a dmi n i s t r a t i v e r e me d i e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a l i e n a s o f r i g h t. . . . ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ). I f w e w er e t o cons i der H anona’ s cl ai m of pas tper s ecut i on, w e w oul d deci de thatany pas tper s ecut i on does notent i t l e hi m t o a pre s um pt i on of futur e per s ecut i on. N or m al l y , once
a p e tit io n e r sh o w s h e h a s s u f f e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n , th e a p p lica n t is p re su m e d to h a v e a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . Mi kh a i l e v i t c h v . I NS , 146 F. 3d at389. T hi s pr es um pt i on can be r ebut t ed “onl yt hr ough es t abl i s hi ng by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hats i nce the per s ecut i on occurr ed, condi t i ons i n t he appl i cant ’ s countr y ‘ have change d t o s uch an e xt ent th a t th e a p p lica n t n o lo n g e r h a s a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f b e in g p e rse c u ted if

h e w e re to
r etur n. ’ ” I

d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. E ven i f H anona’ s name w as actual l yon a l i s tof
as s as s i nat i on t ar get s , and even i f havi ng one’ s name on suc h a l i s t , w i t houtm or e, coul d be
cons i der ed per s ecut i on ( w hi ch w e do not deci de her e) , change d countr ycondi t i ons r ebutany pr es um pt i on r ai s ed bypas tper s ecut i on. T he 2003 S tat e D ep ar t m entr epor t s t hatSaddam H us s ei n’ s r egi m e, t he re gi m e t hatal l egedl yper s ecut ed H anona, w as over t hr ow n on A pr i l 9, 2003. A not herr epor t s ubm i t t ed t o t he IJ , t he B r i t i s h- D ani s h R epor t , s t at ed thatcondi t i ons i n I r aq w er e i m pr ovi ng and thatC hr i s t i ans w er e not per s ecut ed. E ven i f H anona c oul d pr ove p ast p ersecut i on bas ed on pol i t i cal orr el i gi ous bel i ef, t he governm enthas r ebut t ed the pr es um pt i on t hat H anona has a w el l
- founded fear of fut ur e per s ecut i on beca us e of c hanged
c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in Ira q
— n a m e ly , the o v e rth ro w o f th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t h a d a lleg e d lyNo. 06-3996 7

To th e e x t e ntth atH an o n ar e l i e s o nh i s p ar e nt s ’ p a s tp e r s e c ut i o nt o e s t ab l i s hh i s o wnp a st 2 pe rs ec ut io n, s in ce h is p ar ents ’ pe rs ec utio n w as a ls o ba se d on th ei r be in gh ar as se d by

S ad dam Hus se in ’s g ov ernm ent, the ch ang ed c ountry con ditions wou ld also rebut any presum ption of future pe rsecution bas ed on his p arents’ persecution. per s ecut ed H anona. See Shas ha v. G onz al es , N o . 0 6 -31 9 6 , 2 0 0 7 W L 9 3 0 4 0 4 , * 3 (6th C ir
. 2 M ar ch 28, 2007) ( “Thi s cour thas cons i s t ent l yhel d thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he concl us i on t hatcountr yr epor t s det ai l i ng t he r egi m e change i n I r aq re but anypr es um pt i on of
a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n b ase d o n p ast p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of C h ri sti an ity . ”). 2. F ut ure Pers ecut i on H an o n a w o u ld also q u ali fyas a ref u g ee if h e c o u ld sh o w a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, i ndepende ntof anypr es um pt i on r ai s ed bypas tper s ecut i on. H anona s t at es he
w i l l be s ubj ectt o futur e per s ecut i on beca us e of hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs
. H anona makes gener al al l egat i ons t hathe fe ar s futur e per s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o I r aq bec aus e of the cha ot i c s t atus of t he countr yand the M us l i m m aj or i t y ’ s ani m os i t yt ow ar ds C hr i s t i ans . H e al s o bel i eves t hat
a n e w M u slim g o v e rn m e n t w ill d isc rim in a te a g a in st him b e c a u se o f h is p a st a ss o c iatio n w ith t he A D M . Fur t her m or e, he t es t i fi ed t hat ot her C hr i s t i ans i n I r aq w i l l be upset t hathe l eftt he A D M b e f

o re f lee in g Jo rd a n , an d h e w o u ld b e in su lted o r d isg ra c e d b y th e m . In a d d iti o n to hi s ow n s t at ement s , H anona s ubm i t t ed tw o new s paper art i cl es w hi ch des cr i be tw o at t acks byIr aqi M usl i m s agai nstIr aqi C hri st i ans. T o qual i fyas a r efuge e, H anona mustes t abl i s h t hathe w oul d be singl ed outfor p e rs e c u tio n . C o u n tr yw id e a n a rc h yis n o t a b a s is f o r c la im in g p e rs e c u tio n . A li v. A sh c ro ft , 366 F . 3 d 4 07, 410 ( 6t h C i r . 2004)
. T he B I A found t hatt he new s paperar t i cl es H anona
s ubm i t t ed “de m ons t r at e o n lys por adi c vi ol ence and har as s m entbym i l i t ant s i n emer gi ngNo. 06-3996 8

democr at i c I r aq. Speci fi cal l y , t he art i cl es des cr i be s om e vi ol ence i n cert ai n ar eas of I r aq
a g a in st C h ristia n s, b u t w e f in d th a t th e yd o n o t es tab lish th a t th e re sp o n d e n t w ill f a c e a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s r el i gi on, or t hat i t w as m or e l i kel yt han nott hat h e wo u l d b e p e r s e c u t e d o r t o r tu r e d
. ” Af t e r r e v i e wi n g t h e e v i d e n c e s u b mi t t e d b yHa n o n a , we concl ude thatt he B I A w as not compel l ed t o deci de ot herw i s e. T he evi dence s uppor t ed the concl us i on t hat t her e w as no s peci fi c t hr eat of per s ecut i on di r ect ed t o w ard s H anona per s onal l y . T her e w as no evi dence t hat t he new governm ent i s aw ar e of hi s pas tas s oci at i on wi t h AD M , o r wou l d p e r s e c u t e h i m i f t h e y a r e a war e . M o r e o v e r , h i s p r e d i c t i ons of “per s ecut i on” aga i ns thi m ar e phr as ed i n t erm s of har as s m ent , bei ng di s graced, and bei ng i ns ul t ed, none of w hi ch r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on i n t he as y l um cont ext . T he evi dence
s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t hat t he vi ol ence agai ns t C hr i s t i ans s t ems fr om t he hi gh l evel of vi ol ence i n I r aq gene r al l y . I n A lm uht as eb v. G onz al es , 4 5 3 F . 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 0 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ),
w e dec ided t hatan as y l um appl i cant ’ s fea r s of r etur ni ng t o t he W es tB ank bas ed on
s hoot i ngs , s hel l i ng s, bom bi ngs , l ack of i nfr as t ructur e and l ack of m edi cal car e w er e bas ed on “‘ t he exi s t ence of a ge n er al i zed orr andom poss i bi l i t yof per s ecut i on i n [her ] nat i ve countr y , ’ w hi ch i s gener al l y i ns uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h per s ecut i on. ” I d. (a ltera tio n in o rig in a l) ( quot i ng Ca s t e l l a n o - Ch a c o n v . I NS , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 5 3 3 , 5 5 0 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ))
. See al s o B or ca
v . I NS , 77 F . 3d 21 0, 21 4 ( 7th C i r. 19 96 ) (“pet i t i on er m ust present speci fi c, detai led f a c ts
s how i ng a good r eas on t o fea rt hathe ors he w i l l be sin g ledo u t f o r p e rse c u tio n ” ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). B . W i t hhol di ng of

R em ovalNo. 06-3996 9

A n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n is a lso tre a ted a s an a p p lica tio n f o r th e w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. Mi khai l evi t ch , 146 F. 3d at391. W i t hhol di ng o f rem o v al i s r equi r ed i f t he al i en ca n demonst r at e t hat“hi s orherl i fe or fr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n t he pr opos ed countr yof
r emoval on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup,
o r po lit ica l o p in io n .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b ). In o rd e r to q u a lifyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l,
a p e tit io n e r “ m u st e sta b lish th a t th e re is a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyth a t h e w il l b e su b jec t to p erse cut i on i f for ced t o r etur n t o [hi s hom e county ]
. ” I d. T o e s ta b lis h a c le a r p ro b a b ili t y, t he appl i cantm us tdemonst r ate that“i ti s m or e l i kel yt han not ” thathe ors he w i l l be p erse cu ted u p o n return . 8 C
. F . R . § 1 2 0 8
. 1 6 (b)(2 ). T he bur den of pr ov i n g t he l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on foras y l um i s l es s s t r enuous t han t he bur den of pr ovi ng a cl ear pr obabi l i t y of futur e per s ecut i on r equi r ed forw i t hhol di ng
o f re m o v a l. Mi khai l evi t ch , 146 F. 3d at391. H anona c annotm eett he r equi r ement s for sh o w ing h e q u ali fied fo r asy lum , an d there fo re he ca n n o t m ee t the m o re rigo rou s stan d ard f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. C . C onvent i on A gai nst T ort ure T o obt ai n r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns t T or tur e, t he appl i cant bear s t he bur den
o f e sta b lish in g th a t “ it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to t he pr opos ed count r y of r emoval
. ” 8 C
. F. R . § 1208. 16( c) ( 2)
. A cour t i s i ns t ruct ed t o l ook atal l r el evantevi dence t hatr el at es t o t he pos s i bi l i t yof futur e t or tur e, i ncl udi ng: ( i ) evi dence of pas tt or tur e i nfl i ct ed on the appl i cant ; ( i i ) evi dence t hat t he appl i cant coul d r el ocat e t o a par tof t he countr yw her e he i s l i kel ynott o be t or tur ed; ( i i i ) evi dence of gr os s , fl agr ant , orNo. 06-3996 10

m as s vi ol at i ons of hum an ri ght s w i t hi n t he countr yt o w hi ch the appl i cantw i l l be r emoved; and ( i v) ot herr el evant i nfor m at i on about t he count r y t o w hi ch t he appl i cantw i l l be r emoved. 8 C
. F . R . § 1 2 0 8
. 1 6 (c)(3). T h e a p p lic a n t m u st sho w the s am e lev el of p rob ab il ityo f h arm
r equi r ed forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval under§ 241( b) ( 3)
. H anona’ s evi dence does notpr ove he i s m or e l i kel yt han nott o be t or tur ed upon r eturn t o I r aq, and ther efor e hi s cl ai m for pr ot ect i on undert he C A T w as pr oper l ydeni ed. PET I TI ON FOR REVI EW DENI ED .