Opinion ID: 203502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Withholding of Removal and Protection under CAT

Text: An applicant for protection under Article III of CAT must prove that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured if removed to the country designated for removal. Such torture must be inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-1208.18. To be entitled to protection under CAT, the applicant for protection need not show a nexus to a protected ground. However, in assessing whether it is more likely than not that the alien would be tortured, the IJ should consider, among other things: evidence of past torture inflicted on the alien, evidence that the applicant could relocate to another part of the country of removal where most likely he or she will not be tortured and evidence of gross, and flagrant or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal. Id. at § 1208.16(c)(3). An applicant can establish his or her burden of proof by testimony, without corroboration, if the testimony is credible. Id. at § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Dhima v. Gonzáles, 416 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir.2005). Moreover, an alien's failure to mention facts central to his or her claim prior to the hearing does not require a finding of untruthfulness, or a lack of credibility. See Tai v. Gonzáles, 423 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2005). We review the BIA's decision to deny relief under CAT under the deferential substantial evidence standard. Jean, 461 F.3d at 90. As such, we accept the BIA's conclusions unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In the case at hand, the IJ, and subsequently the BIA, considered the inconsistencies within El-Labaki's statements and testimonies when he was interviewed by the asylum officer, those within his asylum application, and the testimony presented at the hearing. In so doing, it was noted that El-Labaki submitted generalized information regarding political conditions in Lebanon, of which he had no personal knowledge, and mentioned conditions or events that transpired after his departure to United States in 2000. Also, El-Labaki alluded to hours of detentions at the border, harassment, occasional beatings and mistreatment by Syrian authorities, but presented no evidence regarding need for medical treatment, muchless evidence of resulting physical injuries. While claiming he was detained and mistreated over ten (10) times in a two (2) year period, this did not prevent him from traveling over twenty-five (25) times between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and other places. It remains that no members of his family, either immediate or extended, have suffered any harm from Syrians while residing in Lebanon prior to or after 1995. More so, before the IJ, El-Labaki claimed his motive for coming to the United States was that he wanted to live a life of freedom and comfort and democracy because in Lebanon there is no security. However, it remains a fact that while asserting he had moved to Saudi Arabia to escape torture, he also stressed having done so because the Lebanese economy was not very good and he could not find a job in Lebanon that would pay him enough to support his family or what he used to earn. El-Labaki further stated that he only left Saudi-Arabia, after twenty-three (23) years, because his employer had given him notice of a fifty percent (50%) salary reduction. Thus, petitioner has solely alluded to economic factors. When specifically questioned why he had not moved his family to another part of Lebanon, such as Beirut, El-Labaki explained that he had not considered such alternatives because relocation was expensive and there were few jobs available in other parts of the country. Thus, as correctly concluded by the IJ, El-Labaki's relocation to Lebanon, and subsequent entry into the United States, were prompted more by economic reasons than by political reasons or by fear of persecution. See Simo v. Gonzáles, 445 F.3d 7, 11-12 (1st Cir.2006)(noting that alien's airport interview did not suggest that the alien came to the United States to avoid persecution). Having suffered no past persecution, based on substantial evidence on record, the IJ and BIA correctly concluded that El-Labaki has failed to show that he was likely to face persecution or torture upon return to his home country. See Hana, 503 F.3d at 44. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied.