Opinion ID: 797838
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Petitioner's Application for Relief Pursuant to the Conventions Against Torture

Text: 59 Mapouya also petitions for review of the denial of his Convention relief claim. To establish entitlement to such relief, an applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 404 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 951 (6th Cir.2004) (in turn quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2))). A claim under The Convention involves a separate question of the threat of torture without regard to the enumerated ground for asylum. Karomi v. Gonzales, 168 Fed.Appx. 719, 729 (6th Cir.2006). See also Ben Hamida, 478 F.3d at 741 (An applicant seeking relief under [The Convention] does not need to show that torture will occur on account of one of the five statutory grounds listed [in the INA]). It is possible, therefore, for an applicant for asylum to succeed on a [Convention] claim even though a withholding of removal claim under the INA is denied. Karomi, 168 Fed.Appx. at 729 (citing Singh, 398 F.3d at 405) (in turn citing Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 551-52 (6th Cir.2003) (explaining that an application for withholding of removal under the INA differs from one filed under The Convention because the latter focuses on a particularized threat of torture without requiring a linkage to one of the five protected grounds)). 60 To assess the risk of torture, the adjudicator must consider the possibility of future torture, including (1) evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant; (2) evidence that the applicant can relocate to a part of the country of removal where he is not likely to be tortured; (3) evidence of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal; and (4) other relevant information regarding conditions in the country of removal. Ali v. Reno, 237 F.3d 591, 596-97 (6th Cir.2001). See also Singh, 398 F.3d at 405; Karomi, 168 Fed.Appx. at 728. 61 In Mapouya's case, the IJ only briefly addressed his claim under The Convention, stating simply that the evidence falls well short of a grant under that section of law. The IJ based this conclusion on the fact that Mapouya testified that he was repeatedly beaten for months on end but brings forward no medical evidence and does not corroborate his claim in any meaningful way. We find the IJ's scant legal analysis and reasoning inadequate, however. 62 First, the IJ's adverse credibility determination on the asylum question erroneously infected his analysis of Mapouya's Convention claim. See Ndiaye v. Gonzales, 184 Fed.Appx. 458, 463 (6th Cir. 2006) (reversing and remanding on petitioner's claim under The Convention when IJ's denial of Convention relief was based entirely on his adverse credibility determination on petitioner's asylum and withholding of removal claims) (citing, inter alia, Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir.2001); Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902, 908 (7th Cir.2000) (both stating [w]e are not comfortable with allowing a negative credibility determination in the asylum context to wash over the torture claim.); Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 479 (3d Cir.2003) (finding error in the IJ's allowing rulings on [petitioner's] asylum and withholding of deportation claim to control her claim under [The Convention])). 63 Second, and to the extent that the IJ's order constitutes an additional Convention-specific adverse credibility finding, that (second) negative credibility determination is similarly unsupported by substantial evidence. Critically, an alien's allegations of torture are not automatically incredible simply for failure to produce corroborating documentary evidence. Singh, 398 F.3d at 406 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)). See also Begu, 162 Fed.Appx. at 429, n. 2 (The Court . . . specifically notes that Petitioner's failure to provide medical records related to the beatings [during her detention] does not constitute a reasonable basis for a finding of incredibility. . . . Not all beatings leave physical marks, and the inability of lay persons to identify such evidence alone is not sufficient to determine that the alleged acts never occurred.). 64 Third, the IJ did not analyze Mapouya's Convention claim through the lens of the four factors enumerated in Ali and outlined above. 65 Accordingly we also remand Mapouya's claim pursuant to The Convention as a matter of first instance under Ventura and Thomas.