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

Heading: Petitioner's Withholding of Removal Application

Text: 56 Mapouya also requested withholding of removal pursuant to § 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). 21 Unlike a discretionary asylum grant, withholding of removal is mandatory if the applicant can establish a clear probability of future persecution. Khora v. Gonzales, 172 Fed.Appx. 634, 640 (6th Cir.2006) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). A clear probability has been defined as more than a 50 percent likelihood of persecution. Stevic, 467 U.S. at 413, 104 S.Ct. 2489. The administrative findings of fact on a withholding application are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 57 Here, the IJ concluded that Mapouya was not entitled to withholding of removal, but provided no legal analysis or reasoning for his conclusion. 22 Although an applicant who fails to meet the statutory eligibility requirements for asylum must necessarily fail to meet the requirements for withholding of removal, Ben Hamida, 478 F.3d at 741 (citing Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir.2005)), the IJ failed to cite even this well-settled proposition to support his withholding conclusion. As a corollary, the IJ's erroneous adverse credibility finding also underlies his withholding of removal denial. Therefore the BIA or IJ hearing the case on remand must also analyze Mapouya's withholding of removal claim after making a proper credibility determination. 58