Elhadj Seck v. Michael Mukasey

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0076n.06
Filed: January 24, 2008
No. 07-3041
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ELHADJ SECK,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL MUKASEY,
Respondent.
/
On Appeal from the Board of
Immigration Appeals
BEFORE: RYAN, BATCHELDER, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
RYAN, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Elhadj Seck, appeals an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
denial of Seck’s claim for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because we find that substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s decision, we deny Seck’s petition for review.
I.
Elhadj Seck was born in the nation of Mauritania. He claims he entered the United
States without valid entry documents through JFK Airport in New York City on November
12, 2001. However, Seck has not offered any corroborating evidence to verify that this was
the actual date he entered the country.

-- 1 of 6 --

(No. 07-3041) - 2 -
On April 3, 2002, Seck filed an application seeking asylum and withholding of
removal based on race, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group. He
later amended his application to request protection under the CAT.
On July 26, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security served Seck with a “Notice
to Appear” charging that he was subject to removal for entering the United States without
valid documents. Seck did not challenge the factual allegations against him and conceded
that he was subject to removal. An IJ conducted a hearing at which Seck and one other
witness testified. The IJ found that Seck’s testimony was not credible, and denied his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT, although the IJ
allowed Seck to depart voluntarily from the country. Seck appealed the IJ’s decision to the
BIA, which, as we have said, affirmed the IJ’s decision. Seck then filed a timely petition
for review in this court.
Mauritania is a country located in northwest Africa where the population and the
political authority is dominated by White Moors. There is a strong and historically volatile
tension between the White Moors and the minority ethnic groups inhabiting Mauritania that
has given rise to a number of conflicts in recent years. One of the minority ethnic groups
is the Wolofs, who speak their own language and share a cultural identity with the majority
population in Senegal, across the Senegal River south of Mauritania.
Seck claims that as a Wolof living in Mauritania, he suffered a general fear of
persecution on account of his ethnicity. He claims his parents were removed from
Mauritania to Senegal when he was young, and that they later died in a refugee camp.
Seck also claims his brother-in-law was killed because he supported Black Wolofs. Seck

-- 2 of 6 --

(No. 07-3041) - 3 -
testified that he was unable to earn a living wage by performing domestic chores in private
residences in Mauritania on account of his Wolof ethnicity.
The essence of Seck’s claim for withholding of removal and for protection under the
CAT is that when he lived in the town of Nouakchott in Mauritania and sold pro-Wolof
literature, he was persecuted because of his Wolof ethnicity, and if forced to return, he
would be subject to similar persecution in the future. Seck claims he was frequently
mistreated and beaten by civilian White Moors, and claims that once, in September 2001,
he was beaten so badly that he was taken to a hospital where he stayed for a couple of
days to recover.
II.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants the Attorney General the
discretionary authority to grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A
“refugee” is defined by the INA as an alien who is “unable or unwilling” to return to his
country of origin “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that his
fear of persecution is well-founded and is both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
See Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2005).
To qualify for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), an applicant
must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted if forced to return
to the place from which he emigrated. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413 (1984). In order
to qualify for withholding of removal under the CAT, an applicant must “establish that it is

-- 3 of 6 --

(No. 07-3041) - 4 -
more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
Since the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning with respect to Seck’s claim for withholding
of removal, we review the IJ’s decision directly. Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th
Cir. 2005). In doing so, we review the IJ’s legal conclusions de novo and review factual
conclusions for substantial evidence. Tapucu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 736, 738 (6th Cir.
2005). We must uphold the IJ’s decision if it is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Koliada v. INS, 259 F.3d 482,
486 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). At the same time, we
may reverse the IJ’s decision only when the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
The basis for the IJ’s decision to deny relief is that there were serious
inconsistencies in the record Seck presented and that his testimony was not credible. The
record raises significant questions about the truth of Seck’s claims. He claims, for
example, that for more than ten years, he lived in Nouakchott with his sister and brother,
selling Wolof books on the streets, and that during this period, he was beaten and
subjected to other forms of persecution.
The IJ attempted to test Seck’s credibility by asking questions about the geography
of Mauritania, and in particular, Nouakchott. The IJ was concerned that while Black Wolofs
comprise a minority of the population in Mauritania, they are a majority in neighboring
Senegal; therefore, it was necessary to make sure that petitioners like Seck, claiming to
be from Mauritania, are not in fact from Senegal. The IJ asked Seck about the major street
in Nouakchott, where many government buildings are located and where many political

-- 4 of 6 --

(No. 07-3041) - 5 -
protests have taken place. Seck was unable to recall the name of this street. The IJ also
asked about the units of currency used in Mauritania and the name of the country’s political
leader. Seck did not know the answer to either question.
The IJ was troubled by the fact that Seck had not mentioned the September 2001
beating and hospitalization in his asylum application or during his interview with the asylum
officer. The first account of this incident surfaced in Seck’s amendment to his asylum
application, filed more than two years after his initial application was filed. Likewise, the
IJ found that Seck was unable to verify the authenticity of the documents he presented to
corroborate his testimony, and that the documents could easily have been counterfeit.
Neither could Seck recall the actual location of the hospital where he claimed to have
stayed. The IJ concluded that Seck’s claim simply lacked credibility, and Seck’s petition
was denied.
Seck argues that the IJ erred in asking the petitioner questions relating to his
general knowledge of Mauritania and failed to take into account the fact that he was poor,
homeless, and uneducated. Further, he alleges that it was improper for the IJ to have
taken judicial notice of facts gleaned from his experience in handling prior cases. It is, of
course, the IJ’s duty to ferret out the truth and to determine whether the witness is testifying
truthfully. Upon reviewing the record, we do not find any of the questions posed to the
petitioner to be unfair or inappropriate.
There are, as the IJ found, many material inconsistencies in the claims Seck
presented, and there is even an absence of convincing evidence that he emigrated from
Mauritania. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence.

-- 5 of 6 --

(No. 07-3041) - 6 -
III.
For the reasons stated, we DENY Seck’s petition for review.

-- 6 of 6 --