Opinion ID: 2982078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: R. at 5 (BIA Dec. at 4).

Text: 5 No. 12-3680 Mbaye v. Holder origin. Perkovic v. INS, 33 F.3d 615, 620 (6th Cir. 1994). If an applicant proves past persecution, she is entitled to a presumption that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution, but that presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing a fundamental change in country conditions demonstrating the absence of such a well-founded fear. Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005). If an applicant is not eligible for asylum, she may seek a grant of withholding of removal under the INA or the CAT. We must “uphold the BIA’s determination against withholding the removal of an alien, unless it is ‘manifestly contrary to the law.’” Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667, 677 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 545 (6th Cir. 2003)). To prove eligibility for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must demonstrate that “her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); see also Shan Sheng Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238, 245 (6th Cir. 2009). The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that “it is more likely than not” that she will be persecuted if returned to her country of origin. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). Likewise, an applicant for relief under the CAT bears the burden of proving “that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). We review factual findings and credibility determinations under a substantial-evidence standard, which requires that the BIA’s determination be upheld if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Koulibaly v. Mukasey, 541 6 No. 12-3680 Mbaye v. Holder F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Marku v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004)). Under this deferential standard, “the test is not whether this Court might have decided differently but whether this Court is compelled to conclude that the [BIA] erred.” Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 383 (6th Cir. 2004). Any legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo. Zhao, 569 F.3d at 246. “Because the BIA did not summarily affirm or adopt the IJ’s reasoning and provided an explanation for its decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination.” IlicLee v. Mukasey, 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007). Mbaye argues that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and that her testimony was sufficient to meet her burden of demonstrating eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396, 406 (6th Cir. 2007) (“The testimony of an applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”). An adverse credibility finding “must be supported by specific reasons” that “go to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”5 Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 637 (6th Cir. 2005). An adverse finding “cannot be based on an irrelevant inconsistency.” Id. And inconsistencies that do not bolster an applicant’s claims do not bear on that applicant’s credibility. Mapouya, 487 F.3d at 407. In this case, the BIA based its adverse credibility determination on three specific and unexplained discrepancies in the record: the omission of a claim of rape in the asylum application, inconsistent details about Mbaye’s family, and testimony that Mbaye was confined to 5 Mbaye filed her initial asylum application in 2001, prior to the Real ID Act’s May 11, 2005 effective date. Thus, the provisions of the Act pertaining to credibility determinations do not apply. See Real ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231, 305 (2005). 7 No. 12-3680 Mbaye v. Holder military camps for varying lengths of time. Because Mbaye’s inconsistent testimony regarding the length of her confinement provides substantial evidence to support the BIA’s adverse credibility finding, we need not decide whether the other discrepancies support such a finding. At different times during Mbaye’s hearing, she gave widely varying estimates of the time she spent in captivity. At one time, she claimed she was held in the military camps for “[t]hree to four weeks.” A.R. at 456 (Hr’g Tr. at 11). At another time, however, she claimed that she “was held for two years in Mauritania before [she was] expelled to Senegal.” Id. at 499 (Hr’g Tr. at 54). And later in the same hearing she stated that “[f]rom the time they took us from our house to take us to Senegal is three years.” Id. at 515 (Hr’g Tr. at 70). Mbaye attempted to explain the inconsistency as a result of her failing memory: “It’s been 21 years and I cannot recall exactly . . . how long I was in those camps for a long time.” Id. However, the wide variance between a few weeks and several years was a reasonable and substantial basis upon which the BIA could base its decision to discredit her explanation. See Sow v. Holder, 444 F. App’x 871, 873 (6th Cir. 2011) (concluding that inconsistent accounts of whether an applicant’s children suffered mistreatment along with her was a “material difference” that “by itself support[ed] the [BIA’s] decision”); Grijalva v. Gonzales, 212 F. App’x 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2007) (basing an adverse credibility determination on accounts of when the applicant was gang raped that varied by several years). Furthermore, these inconsistencies go to the heart of Mbaye’s claim that she suffered past persecution at the military camp in Mauritania. On the basis of this significant discrepancy alone, we are not compelled to conclude that the BIA erred in making its adverse credibility finding. See Chun He Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 8 No. 12-3680 Mbaye v. Holder 2004) (“[S]o long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the applicant’s] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the [BIA’s] adverse credibility finding.”). Although we need not decide the issue, we are concerned by the BIA’s assumption that Mbaye’s failure to claim rape on her asylum application is a “material omission.” A.R. at 3 (BIA Dec. at 2). There is no literal discrepancy between a claim of mistreatment and a claim of rape because rape is a form of mistreatment. See Sinani v. Holder, 418 F. App’x 475, 479 (6th Cir. 2011) (reasoning that “no reasonable interpretation of ‘physical abuse’ would exclude ‘rape’ from its meaning”). Furthermore, omissions of particular injuries from asylum applications are insufficient bases for adverse credibility findings when the omissions “do not directly contradict an applicant’s subsequent testimony.” Id.; see also Koulibaly, 541 F.3d at 622-24 (finding a failure to mention a hospital stay after the applicant was detained and beaten to be a mere omission insufficient to support an adverse credibility finding). In some cases, omissions are immaterial because “the circumstances surrounding the application process do not often lend themselves to a perfectly complete and comprehensive recitation of an applicant’s claim to asylum or withholding, and holding applicants to such a standard is not only unrealistic but also unfair.” Liti, 411 F.3d at 638 (quoting SecaidaRosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 308 (2d Cir. 2003)). To consider any additional detail developed during a hearing an “inconsistency” would imperil any asylum applicant who participated in the legal process provided to her. Therefore, although we find that the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was 9 No. 12-3680 Mbaye v. Holder supported by substantial evidence, we find troubling the assumption that a failure to claim rape is in all cases a “material omission.” Because the BIA discredited Mbaye’s testimony, it correctly considered whether her corroborating evidence was sufficient to support a finding of refugee status. Testimony that Mbaye was living in Mauritania prior to 1989 and that she arrived in the United States in 2000 sheds no light on her claims of persecution between 1989 and 1992. And Mbaye failed to present any documentation from her sister to corroborate their treatment while in the military camps, even though she was in contact with her sister living in France. See Dorosh, 398 F.3d at 383 (finding that the BIA could reasonably expect the applicant to provide an affidavit from her mother, who was living abroad but kept in contact with the applicant, to corroborate the applicant’s ill treatment). The unreliability of Mbaye’s identification documents also undermines her claims by casting doubt on her Mauritanian nationality. See Sow, 444 F. App’x at 875 (finding some doubt as to whether the applicant was Mauritanian when she could not explain how she obtained copies of her identity card). Finally, the letter from Mbaye’s doctor describing her physical and psychological injuries and attributing them to “sexual abuse in the past” is not evidence that Mbaye was persecuted on the basis of her race. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Mbaye failed to meet her burden of proving that she was subject to past persecution. Mbaye concedes on appeal that the BIA’s finding of changed country conditions in Mauritania is “relatively-unassailable.” Pet’r Br. at 36. Thus, Mbaye implicitly admits that she cannot prove a well-founded fear of future persecution. Instead, she argues that she is entitled to 10 No. 12-3680 Mbaye v. Holder humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) (allowing a discretionary grant of asylum to applicants who cannot prove a well-founded fear of future persecution but can establish “a reasonable probability that [they] may suffer other serious harm upon removal to that country”). However, because we hold that Mbaye was unable to prove past persecution, it is unnecessary to remand to allow the BIA to address her eligibility for humanitarian asylum. See Liti, 411 F.3d at 641-42 (noting that humanitarian asylum “provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution whose fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground has been rebutted by evidence of changed country conditions or of safe harbors within his or her home country” (quoting Belishta v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). Nor is she eligible for withholding of removal under the more stringent INA and CAT standards requiring her to prove that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted or tortured upon return to Mauritania. See Liti, 411 F.3d at 640-41.