Opinion ID: 2977924
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fundamentally Changed Country Conditions

Text: Bary also challenges the IJ’s finding of changed country conditions in Mauritania. He argues the IJ’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ’s determination that Bary failed to prove that he timely filed his application precludes Bary’s asylum claim. Nevertheless, we will also examine the IJ’s finding of changed country conditions with respect to Bary’s asylum claim as an alternative basis for our decision. Under § 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), an alien may be granted asylum if he is a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). A refugee is an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to his home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, 08-4346 Bary v. Holder Page 8 or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). A demonstration of past persecution gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The government may overcome this presumption by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been “a fundamental change in the circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). Country Reports and Asylum Profiles may constitute substantial evidence supporting agency decisions denying asylum on the basis of fundamentally changed country conditions. Ramaj v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 520, 531 (6th Cir. 2006). Although State Department reports may be problematic sources on which to rely, they are, nonetheless, generally the best evidence available to ascertain country conditions. Mullai v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 635, 639 (6th Cir. 2004). Here, the IJ relied upon the State Department’s Profile for Mauritania. Bary argues the Profile itself undermines the IJ’s finding. He refers to the following passages: The government’s human rights record is poor; however, there were some significant improvements. At year’s end the military continued to control the government, limiting citizens’ ability to change their government. Other abuses included harsh prison conditions, official impunity, arbitrary arrest, prolonged pretrial detention, executive influence on the judiciary, and restrictions on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion. There was a widespread public perception of governmental corruption and a lack of access to government information. Discrimination against women and female genital mutilation (FGM) continued. Trafficking in persons, ethnic and racial tensions, and political marginalization of largely southern-based ethnic 08-4346 Bary v. Holder Page 9 groups were problems. Involuntary servitude, particularly in remote regions of the country, and child labor in the informal sector occurred. .... Although the constitution and law prohibit such practices, there were reports that police beat and tortured suspects in custody, and there were instances of torture in prisons. Alleged police torture techniques included beating, hanging, burning with cigarettes, electric shock, and cutting. According to reports, those who lacked money or influential family or tribal ties were the most likely to be tortured. Authorities rarely took action against those responsible for such abuse. .... Racial and ethnic minorities faced governmental discrimination. The inconsistent issuance of national identification cards, which were required for voting, effectively disenfranchised numerous members of southern minority groups. Racial and cultural tension and discrimination also arose from the geographic and cultural divides between Moors and Afro Mauritanians. (JA 188, 198). After reviewing the Profile, the IJ acknowledged in his oral decision that Bary “may still face unfortunate discrimination and harassment given his race and ethnicity . . . .” (JA 126). He nevertheless concluded that “this would not put him at risk for actual persecution.” (JA 126). The IJ’s conclusion is not a contradiction, as this Court has also recognized that harassment and discrimination do not necessarily equate with persecution for purposes of asylum. See Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 389 (6th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, as the IJ noted, the government that had persecuted Bary was no longer in power, and there had recently been free and fair elections in Mauritania. Significantly, a substantial number of the 08-4346 Bary v. Holder Page 10 other refugees from the 1989 to 1991 period had returned to Mauritania, many of whom had been able to reclaim their property. The portions of the State Department Profile upon which Bary relies paint a grim picture of human rights in Mauritania. In light of other evidence in the Profile, however, we cannot say that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that country conditions in Mauritania had not fundamentally changed since Bary left there in 1989. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s determination of changed country conditions. For this additional reason, we will not overturn the BIA’s denial of Bary’s application for asylum. Lastly, Bary asserts that after the IJ and BIA denied his claims for relief, the Mauritanian military initiated a coup d’état and overthrew the civilian government. “[I]n light of the highly complex and sensitive nature of the question of changed country conditions,” we allow the BIA “the opportunity to address the matter in the first intance in light of its own expertise,” Khora v. Gonzales, 172 F. App’x 634, 639-40 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bary’s proper recourse, then, is to petition the BIA to reopen his case under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), which allows the BIA to “reopen a closed proceeding if the petitioner includes with the petition affidavits and the information to be considered at the reopened proceeding relating to the change in conditions since the BIA originally considered the 08-4346 Bary v. Holder Page 11 claim.” Zeito v. Gonzales, 152 F. App’x 496, 503 (6th Cir. 2005). The time and numerical limitations placed on motions to reopen do not apply to those based on changed country conditions. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We do not express any view as to the merits of such a petition in Bary’s case.