Opinion ID: 2978086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Clear Administrative Findings

Text: Diallo first asserts that the agency’s “poorly reasoned decisions which lacked clear administrative findings” deprived him of a fair hearing and procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. Diallo relies on Gjyzi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2004), to assert that the lack of clear administrative findings in the agency’s decision violates his due process rights. In Gjyzi, our Court vacated the agency’s order and remanded for further explanation, because the BIA reversed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination but affirmed the IJ’s ultimate conclusion, without any additional explanation. Id. at 713. Here, Diallo asserts that many of the BIA’s and the IJ’s findings “lacked a rational explanation,” were confusing and hindered meaningful appellate review, citing, as an example, the IJ’s failure to use subheadings. Gjyzi, however, does not mandate this type of compliance with rigid structural formats. Gjyzi, 386 F.3d at 716. Diallo takes further issue with the IJ’s finding that he did not suffer past persecution by the government as a result of the interrogations, despite Diallo’s credible testimony that he was forced to leave his village due to a Page 7 Case No. 08-4034 Diallo v. Holder friend’s warning that his life was in danger, and his own fear that he would disappear. This argument goes to the IJ’s interpretation of the facts, and application of the law to the facts, not to any failure on the IJ’s part to provide a clear explanation of its factual findings. Diallo finds further fault with what he considers the IJ’s failure to specifically state: (1) that the required nexus between the rebels’ robbery of Diallo and one of the statutory grounds for asylum was missing; and (2) that there had been a favorable “change of country conditions.” The record, however, demonstrates that the IJ clearly addressed both issues. The IJ’s factual findings are not rendered unclear merely because they are not specified in the terms Diallo wanted. Additionally, Diallo contends that the BIA distorted the facts in its opinion by: (1) describing Diallo as a diamond trafficker; (2) failing to mention that Diallo had suffered a permanent eye injury as a result of his detention at the rebel camp; (3) failing to mention that Diallo had fled rather than merely left Sierra Leone; and (4) omitting from the facts that Diallo had been warned not to return to Sierra Leone by diamond dealer associates of Diallo, rather than just “friends” as noted by the BIA. Even assuming arguendo that Diallo is correct, he nevertheless has failed to allege how any such factual distortion prejudiced the outcome of the administrative proceedings, particularly since he concedes that many of the facts allegedly distorted or omitted by the BIA had been noted by the IJ, whose decision the BIA ultimately affirmed. Diallo also contends that many of the BIA’s findings were “summary in nature and lacked factual support.” The BIA’s summary affirmance of an IJ’s decision alone does not violate a petitioner’s due process rights. Gjyzi, 386 F.3d at 716. Next, Diallo alleges that the BIA’s decision was confusing for: (1) finding that even if Diallo had suffered past persecution, it was not on account of a protected ground, and failing to Page 8 Case No. 08-4034 Diallo v. Holder specify whether it was referring to persecution by the rebels or the government; (2) finding that Diallo did not show his treatment by the government amounted to persecution, and failing to specify whether the omission related to the level of harm or the required nexus to a protected class; and (3) failing to specify whether the background evidence demonstrates favorable or unfavorable changed conditions in Sierra Leona, and whether said change related to Diallo’s persecution. Diallo is manufacturing ambiguity where none exists. The record demonstrates that the IJ and the BIA clearly laid out their findings and supporting rationale. The BIA noted that Diallo had not shown persecution by the Government. Therefore, the only treatment that may have risen to the level of persecution was his kidnaping and beating by the rebels, which was done for economic reasons and not on account of any protected ground. Concerning the second alleged error, it is apparent from the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s additional comments that the agency found the government interrogation of Diallo did not rise to a level of harm that would constitute persecution. And, finally, it is clear from the BIA’s opinion that the change in Sierra Leone was favorable, as the BIA noted “there was no indication in the Country Reports that former rebels or those thought to have had ties to the rebels are in danger,” which pertains to Diallo’s claim that he feared persecution by the Government because of an imputed political opinion. Thus, Diallo’s contention that he was denied due process by the agency’s confusing factual findings is meritless. ii. Prejudice Diallo additionally contends that the BIA prejudged his case by relying on personal belief and slanting the facts. Specifically, Diallo argues that the way in which the BIA recited the IJ’s factual facts was slanted negatively against him, demonstrating the BIA’s prejudice. Diallo cites Page 9 Case No. 08-4034 Diallo v. Holder the BIA’s description of him as a “trafficker” rather than a “diamond dealer,” notes that the BIA said he “left” rather than “fled” Sierra Leone, and states that he had been “warned by friends not to return to Sierra Leone” but “failed to add that such warning was made based upon the demise of other returning diamond dealers.” Taking as true Diallo’s contention that the BIA slanted the IJ’s factual findings, Diallo, nonetheless, has failed to demonstrate how the proceedings would have turned out differently but for this alleged error. The BIA’s decision to deny Diallo asylum rested in large part on (1) his failure to demonstrate past persecution, which is not shown by the pleading of speculative threats, as was done here, and (2) a favorable change in country conditions that is not implicated by the language with which he takes issue. Therefore, Diallo has failed to demonstrate a due process violation resulting from the BIA’s alleged prejudice. iii. Corroborating Evidence Diallo next contends that he suffered a due process violation when the IJ denied his asylum claim based on his failure to provide “objective evidence” of a well-founded fear of persecution, and allegedly deprived him of an opportunity to demonstrate that he could provide such “objective evidence.” Where it is reasonable to expect corroborating evidence, and an applicant has failed to present such evidence, her claim may be denied for failure to meet her burden of proof. See Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Vasha, 410 F.3d at 871 n. 3. Diallo was obligated to present objective evidence demonstrating that those perceived by the government to be rebel supporters were being persecuted, or explain why he could not provide this information. See Dorosh, 398 F.3d at 383-84. It was not the IJ’s burden to request this information. Moreover, if additional material facts or objective evidence was found after the IJ’s decision was rendered that Page 10 Case No. 08-4034 Diallo v. Holder would have supported Diallo’s asylum claim, then Diallo could have filed a motion to reopen or remand. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), 1003.2(c)(1). Diallo was not deprived of due process when the IJ did not provide a further opportunity to submit additional objective evidence. Diallo also contends that the IJ and the BIA made no reference to the materials he submitted, showing that he had been informed in 2002 it would be dangerous for him in Sierra Leone because other businessmen returning under similar circumstances had been killed by the Government. This evidence, however, does not address the changed country conditions in Sierra Leone, including the absence of evidence in the 2005 Country Report of government persecution of rebel supporters. We can overturn the agency’s factual findings only upon evidence that compels us to do so. No such evidence has been presented here.