NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0467n.06
No. 09-3989
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Aug 03, 2010
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
MOHAMED HASSAN ABDI, )
)
Petitioner, )
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
)
FROM THE BOARD OF
v. )
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
)
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY )
GENERAL )
OPINION
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________________)
Before: BOGGS, SILER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Mohamed Hassan Abdi, a native and citizen
of Somalia, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). For the following reasons, we DISMISS the petition for review as to
Abdi’s asylum claim and DENY his petition for review with regard to his claims for withholding
of removal and CAT relief.
I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Abdi was born in Afgoi, Somalia in 1966 and is a member of the minority Geledi ethnic
group. After finishing high school in 1984, Abdi began working as a truck driver for the Somalian
government. Following the commencement of the civil war in 1991, Abdi and his family began
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
experiencing problems at the hands of the Hawiye and Darod ethnic groups, two of the dominant
clans in the country. In June 1991, Hawiye militiamen (members of the United Somali Congress
(“USC”)) arrived in Afgoi; shot and killed Abdi’s father, wife, and six-month old daughter; and
proceeded to loot his home. Abdi was working at a nearby farm when the attack occurred, but he
ran toward the house at the sound of the gun fire and arrived only after his family had been
murdered. Although the perpetrators were already leaving in their vehicles by time he arrived, Abdi
testified that he was able to identify them as Hawiye. Following the murders, Abdi grew
increasingly concerned for his life and within the month fled with his surviving family members to
Kismayo, Somalia where they lived for some time selling fruit and vegetables. Ultimately, in late
1991 or early 1992, Abdi and his family moved to a refugee camp in Kenya.
During his time in Kenya, Abdi eventually met a smuggler who agreed to help him enter the
United States. Leaving his two surviving children and his mother in the refugee camp, Abdi and the
smuggler boarded a plane from Nairobi to the United States and allegedly landed at New York’s
John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”) sometime on the evening on July 28, 2000. Abdi
testified that at the port of entry the smuggler gave him a passport to present to U.S. officials but
reclaimed the passport once Abdi cleared immigration and customs, thereby leaving Abdi with no
documentation of his inspection and admission. Following their successful entrance into the country,
the two men purportedly took a taxi cab from New York to Boston where Abdi hoped to find
relatives and friends. According to Abdi, he was unable to contact anyone he knew in Boston but
discovered that he had friends in Atlanta, Georgia. That same evening, Abdi stated that he boarded
2
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
a bus to Atlanta where he stayed with a friend, Aziz Farah, from the date of his arrival in Atlanta
until February 2003, when he moved to Ohio.
B. Procedural History
Abdi originally filed his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
CAT on August 25, 2000. In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued Abdi a
Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which Abdi apparently never received. He was ordered removed in
absentia on December 6, 2006. In April 2007, however, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Abdi’s
motion to reopen his immigration proceedings, and, with the assistance of counsel, Abdi reasserted
his intent to pursue his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in June 2007.
Also with the help of counsel, on December 7, 2007, before his merits hearing, Abdi submitted
amendments to his 2000 asylum application. Because Abdi lacked English fluency, he testified that
although he did not write the contents of either the 2000 asylum application or the 2007
amendments, he was involved in their preparation. Specifically, Abdi testified that the preparers of
both documents read the documents to him in his native tongue and that Abdi confirmed that the
information contained therein was accurate before they were submitted.
At the hearing before the IJ, Abdi testified in support of his application and recounted his
experiences in Somalia, focusing in particular on the death of his family in Afgoi. When both
counsel and the IJ confronted Abdi with several major discrepancies between his testimony and his
written asylum applications, which are discussed in more detail below, Abdi claimed that his
memory was faulty because of post-traumatic stress. One of Abdi’s family friends also testified at
3
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
the hearing, confirming that Abdi was a member of the Geledi ethnic group and that he had heard
that Abdi’s father had been killed, although the friend provided no details concerning the incident.
The Government then called Abdi’s then-current wife to testify, who corroborated Abdi’s testimony
that he had frequent memory lapses. Ultimately, the IJ found that Abdi was “not a credible witness”
and refused to credit his testimony concerning both his date of entrance to the United States and his
tale of his experiences in Somalia before arriving in the United States. Administrative Record
(“A.R.”) at 54 (IJ Oral Decision). The IJ concluded that Abdi’s testimony was “paramount” because
of the lack of supporting evidence, id., but because Abdi was wholly incredible, he failed to meet
his burden to show that his application for asylum was timely and that he was eligible for either
withholding of removal or relief under CAT.
On appeal, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination that Abdi had failed to establish that
his asylum application was timely filed. Turning to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, the BIA
affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that Abdi was not a credible witness and determined that although
Abdi’s testimony about the general turmoil in Somalia was not inconsistent with the documentary
evidence, the evidence of “the general country conditions d[id] not sufficiently meet [Abdi’s] burden
of proof for either withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.”
A.R. at 4 (BIA Op.). The BIA also rejected Abdi’s argument that the IJ should have granted him a
continuance to obtain more evidence to corroborate his testimony, noting that Abdi never requested
a continuance, had “not explain[ed] what evidence he would have submitted[] if he had been given
additional time, or why any additional evidence was not previously presentable or discoverable prior
4
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
to his merits hearing.” Id. The BIA dismissed Abdi’s appeal, and Abdi timely petitioned this court
for review.
II. ANALYSIS
Abdi makes several claims before this court. First, he argues that the agency’s determination
that he failed to file his application for asylum in a timely manner violated his right to procedural due
process because the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “lack[ed] clear findings.” Pet. Br. at 8. Second, Abdi
asserts that the adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Third,
Abdi claims that the conclusion that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and
CAT relief is also not supported by substantial evidence. Fourth, in recognition that additional
evidence may have bolstered both his credibility and his offer of proof, Abdi argues that the IJ
violated his right to procedural due process by failing to grant him a continuance sua sponte in order
to allow Abdi to procure such evidence. For the following reasons, we conclude that all of Abdi’s
claims are without merit.
A. Standard of Review
In cases where the BIA adopts and supplements the IJ’s decision, such as the instant case,
we review the opinion of the IJ in conjunction with the BIA’s additional comments and discussion.
See Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485, 490 (6th Cir. 2009). “We review the IJ’s and BIA’s
findings for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the decision was ‘manifestly contrary to
law,’ 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C), that is, if the evidence ‘not only supports a contrary conclusion, but
indeed compels it,’” Haider v. Holder, 595 F.3d 276, 281 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ouda v. INS, 324
5
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
F.3d 445, 451 (6th Cir. 2003)). As the conclusion regarding whether an applicant is credible is a
finding of fact, we review an adverse credibility finding under this same substantial-evidence
standard. Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 734, 736 (6th Cir. 2007). “Although an adverse credibility
finding is given substantial deference, the finding must be supported by specific reasons and[,]” in
cases filed prior to the effective date of the REAL ID Act, “must be based on issues that go to the
heart of the applicant’s claim, rather than ‘irrelevant inconsistenc[ies].’” Diallo v. Holder, 364 F.
App’x 992, 995 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished opinion) (quoting Sylla v. INS, 388 F.3d 924, 926 (6th
Cir. 2004)). We have emphasized that “[i]f a discrepancy cannot be viewed as an attempt by the
applicant to enhance his claims of persecution, then it has no bearing on credibility.” Diallo, 364
F. App’x at 995 (citing Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 402 (6th Cir. 2005)).
B. Asylum Claim
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), absent changed circumstances, an applicant for asylum must
“demonstrate[] by clear and convincing evidence that” he or she filed the application “within [one]
year after the date of the [individual’s] arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). We
lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s timeliness determination when the petitioner’s “‘appeal seeks
review of discretionary or factual questions.’” Fang Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir.
2008) (quoting Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006)). “‘[W]hen the appeal
seeks review of constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction,’” however, our jurisdiction
is not affected. Id. (quoting Almuhtaseb, 453 F.3d at 748).
6
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
In the instant case, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Abdi had failed to present
sufficient evidence to establish that he filed his application for asylum within one year of entering
the United States. The IJ specifically held that “[t]he only evidence” that Abdi “presented to
establish the date of [his] arrival in the United States” was his own testimony, and because Abdi was
not credible, his testimony alone was insufficient to carry his burden.1 A.R. at 53 (IJ Oral Decision).
Although this is the type of determination over which we generally possess no appellate jurisdiction,
Abdi attempts to argue that he is seeking review of a statutory or constitutional error by claiming that
the IJ’s and BIA’s untimeliness decisions “violated his statutory right to a fair hearing and his
1
In concluding that Abdi’s testimony related to his entry date was not credible, the IJ
relied on several facts. First, the IJ noted that Abdi claimed that he arrived at JFK in the evening,
took a taxi cab to Boston, and arrived in Boston before dark. The IJ believed it “just not
credible” that Abdi would have taken a taxi for the almost four-hour trip from New York City to
Boston, and, even assuming that he did take a taxi, the IJ did not believe that Abdi could have
left New York City in the evening and arrived in Boston before dark. A.R. at 59 (IJ Oral
Decision). Second, the IJ relied on the fact that although Abdi claimed that the same day he
arrived in the United States—July 28, 2000—he boarded a bus to Atlanta where he purportedly
resided with a friend for the next three years, that friend, Aziz Farah, submitted an affidavit that
contradicted Abdi’s time line. Farah stated that Abdi “liv[ed] with [him] during the period of
8/20/2001 to 2/12/2003,” A.R. at 198 (Farah Aff.), which was a period that began almost one
year after Abdi purportedly arrived in the United States and traveled to Atlanta.
Abdi’s contention that these inconsistencies could not serve as the basis for finding his
application untimely because they involved events that occurred after he actually entered the
country is baseless. These facts clearly formed part of Abdi’s arrival story, and the IJ was
entitled to disbelieve him. This is particularly the case given Abdi’s inability to convey a
consistent account of any aspect of the basis for his claim for relief, as will be discussed in more
detail below. See, e.g., Seng v. Holder, 584 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Should the IJ
reasonably determine that the alien’s testimony is not credible, he may disregard it in whole or in
part.” (emphasis added)).
7
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
constitutional right to procedural due process” because their opinions “were confusing and lacked
clear administrative findings.” Pet. Br. at 26.
Abdi’s attempt to recast his claim in a statutory or constitutional light by clouding the record
fails. It is true that this court held in Gjyzi v. INS, 386 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2004), that where the IJ or
the BIA make “a legal error in the course of making [a timeliness] determination” appellate review
will not be foreclosed, but the instant case is markedly different from Gjyzi. See id. at 714. Unlike
Gjyzi, where the BIA’s opinion “lack[ed] an actual or divinable reasoned basis,” id., the record in
the instant case is perfectly clear as to why the agency held Abdi’s application untimely: Abdi
presented no evidence as to his entry date other than his own testimony, which was wholly
unbelievable. Nothing that the BIA says is irreconcilable with this reasoned conclusion. That Abdi’s
counsel may find the IJ’s or BIA’s opinions “confusing” does not make them legally deficient.
Abdi’s challenge to the timeliness determination is nothing more than a claim that the IJ and BIA
erred in concluding that his testimony regarding his entrance was not believable and that if the
agency had believed him, it would have held that Abdi’s application was timely. “Because [Abdi]
is arguing a factual error,” we “lack[] jurisdiction regarding the timeliness of [his] asylum
application.” Diallo, 364 F. App’x at 995; see also Bushati v. Mukasey, 310 F. App’x 883, 885 (6th
Cir. 2009) (holding that jurisdiction was lacking to review an IJ’s determination that an asylum
application was untimely when that determination was based on the fact that “[t]he petitioner
offer[ed] no evidence, other than his own testimony” regarding his date of entry). Accordingly, we
DISMISS Abdi’s petition for review of his application for asylum.
8
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
C. Claim for Withholding of Removal and CAT Relief
“To prevail on a petition for withholding of removal under the INA,” the petitioner bears the
burden to put forth sufficient evidence “that there is a ‘clear probability,’ that is, that ‘it is more
likely than not,’ that [he or] she would be subject to persecution on the basis of one of . . . five
[enumerated] grounds were [he or] she removed from this country.” Almuhtaseb, 453 F.3d at 749
(quoting Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 640–41 (6th Cir. 2005), and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)). “By
contrast, to be eligible for withholding of removal under the CAT, ‘the applicant bears the burden
of establishing it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.’” Id. (quoting Liti, 411 F.3d at 641 and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)).
1. Adverse Credibility Finding
Given the limited evidence that Abdi presented in support of his application for relief, Abdi’s
credibility was critical to the agency’s resolution of his petition. The IJ and the BIA both concluded
that Abdi was not credible, and although Abdi asserts that the adverse credibility finding was not
supported by substantial evidence, we reject Abdi’s claim for the following reasons.
To find Abdi unworthy of belief, the IJ relied on several discrepancies between Abdi’s oral
testimony at the merits hearing and Abdi’s written applications for asylum. These were not
irrelevant or trivial discrepancies; rather, many of them bore directly upon Abdi’s claim that he
feared future persecution or torture. For example, when testifying about the day that his father, wife,
and daughter were killed—allegedly at the hands of the Hawiye and because of his family’s status
as Geledi—Abdi testified that he was working on a farm approximately one mile away at the time
9
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
of the attack, that he was “not there when [his family members] were shot,” and that he arrived on
the scene when his family was already deceased. A.R. at 92 (Abdi Test.). In his asylum application,
however, Abdi’s statements were to the contrary. He claimed not only that he was present when his
wife and daughter were shot, but he also stated that he, himself, was nearly killed as a result of the
USC militiamen’s gunfire and was forced to throw himself on the ground in order to avoid the spray
of bullets. A.R. at 180 (Asylum Application). An additional discrepancy involved the harm that his
mother allegedly faced at the hands of the USC during the attack. Abdi testified before the IJ that
his mother had managed to escape the violence of the militiamen, A.R. at 94 (Abdi Test.), but this
statement directly contradicted the claim in his asylum application that at the time of the shooting
his “mother had been beaten with the butt of a rifle” by the Hawiye. A.R. at 186 (Asylum
Application).
Another inconsistency that the IJ rightly found problematic was Abdi’s testimony concerning
a gunshot wound to his leg. At the hearing, Abdi testified that prior to leaving Afgoi to live in
Kismayo he was shot in the foot by the Hawiye “owner of the farm” where he worked because he
was not working fast enough and the owner became frustrated with him. A.R. at 100 (Adbi Test.).
His asylum application stated, however, that after arriving in Kismayo, “one of the Darod militiamen
shot [him] in the leg” because he had refused to perform work for him. A.R. at 186 (Asylum
Application). Moreover, Abdi had also claimed in his application for asylum that he had suffered
“constant[] abuse[]—both physical[] and verbal[],” id. at 186, at the hand of the Darod in Kismayo
and was essentially living as a slave. But at the hearing before the IJ, Abdi made no mention of this
10
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
abuse. Instead, when asked about his stay in Kismayo and whether he had been held against his will
by anyone while there, Abdi merely stated that “the same USC that murdered [his] father [had] . . .
captured the city.” A.R. at 98 (Adbi Test.); see Liti, 411 F.3d at 637 (“Like affirmative
inconsistencies, omissions may form the basis of an adverse credibility determination, provided that
they are substantially related to the asylum claim.”).
Again, these discrepancies are not minor or irrelevant inconsistencies that fall outside of the
heart of Abdi’s claim such that they should have no impact on his credibility. Instead, they bear
directly upon the severity of the harm that Abdi suffered in Somalia and the identity of the
individuals who inflicted that harm, which necessarily implicates the alleged actors’ motivations and
calls into question the genuineness of the entirety of Abdi’s application for relief from removal.2
See, e.g., Peci v. Holder, No. 06-4063, 2010 WL 2232295, at *3 (6th Cir. June 3, 2010) (unpublished
opinion) (noting that testimony with “inconsistent descriptions of the men who” committed an act
of persecution constituted “a crucial contradiction”); Garcia-Morales v. Holder, No. 09-3439, 2010
2
Abdi attempts to downplay the inconsistencies between his testimony and his asylum
application by ignoring these large-scale contradictions and discussing only the minor
contradictions that the IJ also noted. Although it is true that the IJ expressed concern over some
discrepancies that may not be sufficient to sustain an adverse credibility finding on their
own—for example, whether Abdi stated that he was shot in the leg versus the foot or whether his
family lived in one house or two adjoining houses—Abdi fails to appreciate the impact of the
larger-looming discrepancies between his testimony and his asylum application, and the IJ’s
mention of minor inconsistencies does not defeat the adverse credibility finding generally. See,
e.g., Vasha v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 863, 869 (6th Cir. 2005) (“In this case, though several of the
inconsistencies identified by the IJ were unsupported and the implausibilities were based on mere
speculation, we conclude that review of the record as a whole does not compel a contrary
result.”)
11
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
WL 2161792, at *3 (6th Cir. May 28, 2010) (unpublished opinion) (finding the failure to mention
in testimony before the IJ that alleged persecutors had “abused and killed innocent people in [the
petitioner’s] presence and forced him to perform manual labor” when those facts were included in
the asylum application amounted to “significant discrepancies” that went to the “heart of [the]
claim”).
In fact, at his hearing, Abdi recognized that the discrepancies were problematic, and he
attempted to explain their source by claiming that the trauma of seeing his father, wife, and daughter
killed meant that his “memory [wa]s not very good.” A.R. at 112 (Abdi Test.). He additionally
explained that he would become “mentally disturbed” upon thinking about what had happened in
Somalia and forget many things. Id. Although Abdi alleges that the IJ “did not adequately
acknowledge [his] . . . explanation” for his divergent statements, Pet. Br. at 19, this claim is
completely belied by the record. Upon hearing Abdi’s explanation, the IJ specifically addressed
Abdi’s statements and concluded that while “[h]aving trouble with one’s memory is understandable,
relating versions of a particular event that are this [disparate] indicates to the Court that . . . one is
making up facts in order to fill either his testimony at trial or the asylum application.” A.R. at 59
(IJ Oral Decision). In other words, the IJ made clear that he did not believe that Abdi had an
“understandable” case of memory loss where he was perhaps unable to recall particular details or
events and, as a result, gave incomplete or vague statements concerning those circumstances upon
which his claim was based. Instead, Abdi explained key occurrences in Somalia in two different and
irreconcilable manners, which indicated to the IJ not that Abdi simply could not remember what
12
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
happened but that one set of Abdi’s statements was entirely false. Cf. N’Diom v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d
494, 499 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Neither the Immigration Judge nor the Board explain[ed] why they
disbelieve[d] th[e] explanation for the earlier omission of details covering . . . persecution [the
petitioner] suffered.”). Unfortunately for Abdi, “it takes more [than a plausible explanation] to
overcome an adverse credibility determination.” Shkabari v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 324, 330 (6th Cir.
2005). And because “the IJ’s contrary interpretation” of Abdi’s inconsistent statements was “not
unreasonable, it supports an adverse credibility finding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted); see also Penyaz v. Filip, 308 F. App’x 985, 988 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished opinion)
(concluding that “the IJ and BIA were not compelled to accept [the petitioner’s] explanation of
translator error” for an inconsistency that went to the heart of the petitioner’s claim).
Abdi also attempts to argue that regardless of the fact that the IJ provided him with the
opportunity to explain the origin of his inconsistent testimony, the IJ violated his due-process rights
by failing sua sponte to grant a continuance in order to allow Abdi to procure additional evidence
to support his explanation for the discrepancies in his story. Apparently, the premise underlying this
argument is that if Abdi had introduced additional evidence documenting his memory problems, the
IJ would have been compelled to accept his explanation that the inconsistencies resulted from a
medical inability to recall correctly these traumatic events. Abdi’s argument proves too much. At
no point did Abdi request a continuance to procure additional evidence, and he has pointed to no
case law to support his assertion that the IJ had the obligation to suspend the proceedings on his own
initiative to allow Abdi to prepare better. We have little sympathy for Abdi’s attempt to attribute
13
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
his own failings to the IJ in this case. In short, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s
determination that Abdi was wholly incredible, and we are not compelled to conclude otherwise.
2. Additional Evidence Not Sufficient for Relief
Given that Abdi did not testify credibly, in order to require reversal of the agency’s denial
of relief there must be other evidence in the record that by itself compels us to conclude that Abdi
would be likely to suffer persecution or torture upon his removal to Somalia such that he warrants
either withholding of removal or relief under CAT.3 Abdi presented documentary evidence in the
form of newspaper articles, as well as reports from international human-rights organizations and the
U.S. State Department that supported Abdi’s general claim that low-caste clans in Somali are, on the
whole, politically powerless and are “subjected to killings, torture, rapes, kidnappings for ransom,
and looting” at the hands of the dominant clans. A.R. at 259 (U.S. State Dep’t Report 2005). There
is also no doubt that Abdi’s documentary evidence establishes that Somalia is a violent country
experiencing a period of severe disorder, instability, and even lawlessness. But “[a]lthough country
conditions alone” may establish a likelihood of persecution or torture “even in the absence of
credible testimony” in some instances, Tifow v. Mukasey, 303 F. App’x 377, 379 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008)
(unpublished opinion) (citing Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282–84 (9th Cir. 2001)), as the
BIA concluded, this is not such a case. Nothing in Abdi’s documentary evidence establishes that “he
3
As part of his petition for review before this court, Abdi asserts that the IJ erred in
requiring additional corroborative evidence of past persecution because no other corroborative
evidence was reasonably available. For the purposes of review we will assume, as did the BIA,
that the IJ erred in requiring additional corroborative evidence and that the only evidence
available was that which Abdi introduced as part of the record.
14
No. 09-3989
Abdi v. Holder
will be singled out for persecution as a [Geledi], nor does the evidence in the record compel the
conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against the [Geledi] as an identifiable
group.” Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2005).4 The situation in Somalia is
regrettable, but it cannot form the basis of relief for Abdi in the instant case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we DISMISS Abdi’s petition insofar as it seeks review of
his application for asylum, and we DENY the remainder of his petition.
4
Abdi also argues that a remand is warranted because the BIA did not consider his
evidence of the general country conditions in Somalia, and he relies on Mostafa v. Ashcroft, 395
F.3d 622, 625 (6th Cir. 2005), for this contention. We disagree. In the instant case, the BIA
expressly concluded that “the general country conditions” did not suffice to meet Abdi’s burden
for relief, A.R. at 4 (BIA Op.), indicating that it had, in fact, considered those country conditions.
See Nabhani v. Holder, No. 09-3417, 2010 WL 2587944, at *4 (6th Cir. June 29, 2010)
(unpublished opinion) (“[T]he Board’s denial of CAT protection did not rest solely on adverse
credibility. Rather, the Board separately found the general reports of country conditions in the
record insufficient to merit relief.”). Moreover, although the BIA could have further elaborated
on the evidence in its opinion, the BIA need not necessarily examine in detail every piece of
evidence “so long as the BIA analyzed and explained the basis upon which it decided against”
Abdi, particularly given that the additional evidence does not meaningfully support Abdi’s claim.
Bi Feng Liu, 560 F.3d at 491 n.5; see also Peci, 2010 WL 2232295, at *5. Unlike Mostafa,
where the Country Reports contained relevant and illuminating information on the petitioner’s
individualized claim for relief, the U.S. State Department Country Reports for 2005 and 2006 in
the instant case do not. In fact, they make no mention of the Geledi clan in the context of the
above-discussed turmoil, and while the Report for 2006 does refer to the “Geledle” clan, which it
states is a subclan of the “Rahanweyn” clan, A.R. at 233 (U.S. State Dep’t Report 2006), Abdi
testified before the IJ that “the Rahanweyn clan” was “another tribe, another group” and that it
was “not . . . the same as” the Geledi. A.R. at 128 (Abdi Test.).
15