Asylum, withholding of removal, & protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); Fear of persecution; 8 USC §§ 1158(b)(1) & 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 CFR §§ 208.16(c) & 208.17(a); Credibility determination; Inconsistent testimony; Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred by finding that petitioner failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against black Fulanis in Mauritania; Immigration Judge (IJ)

On petition for review from the BIA, the court held that there was substantial evidence to support the BIA’s finding that petitioner-Sy was not credible, a finding that was “‘fatal’ to his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.” Sy, a Mauritanian national, entered the country illegally. After removal proceedings were initiated, he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, arguing that he would be persecuted should he return to Mauritania. He claimed that he would be killed or tortured because of his ethnicity where he is “black and a member of the Fulani ethnic group.” He also asserted that he feared persecution based on his past participation in anti-government protests. After hearing testimony from Sy and an expert, the IJ “denied Sy’s applications and found him removable.” The IJ concluded that “Sy wasn’t credible[,]” stressing the inconsistencies in his “testimony about whether his brothers were present during his arrests in Mauritania. Likewise, there was ‘no reasonable explanation’ for why Sy’s brother who lived in New York failed to testify on Sy’s behalf—even by affidavit or video—or for how Sy obtained a passport from an allegedly hostile government. The [IJ] doubted that the Mauritanian government would ‘stamp[] his passport’ and let him leave the country when Sy was allegedly a wanted man.” Lastly, the IJ found “that the similarities between Sy’s stories about each of his arrests ‘just seem[ed] incredible.’” The BIA affirmed. The court first held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that he was not credible. It referenced the differences between his written declaration and his oral testimony, and found that his story of his arrests was “inherently implausible[.]” Additionally, his explanation of how he left Mauritania made “little sense” where he claimed that he went to the very police that were persecuting him to buy a passport. The court also rejected Sy’s argument that the BIA erred by finding that he failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against black Fulanis in Mauritania. It noted that they “are the largest ethnic group of black Africans in Mauritania—they’re not a small or isolated minority. And there has been no broad attempt to harm or imprison” them there. Further, Sy’s expert testimony did not “establish a pattern of persecution against Fulanis in Mauritania.” The court denied the petition for review.