Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10596
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A098-854-993
THIERNO DIALLO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
__________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(November 27, 2018)
Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thierno Diallo, a native of Guinea, seeks review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirmed the denial of his application for asylum
Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 2 of 8
and withholding of removal. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
finding that country conditions have changed such that Diallo no longer has a well-
founded fear of future persecution, we deny his petition for review.
I. BACKGROUND
Diallo was born in Guinea and is a member of the Fula tribe, the largest
ethnic group in Guinea. In 2001, Diallo was 16 years old when, along with his
father and older brother, he attended a meeting of the RPG, a Guinean political
party led by Alpha Condé that opposed the ruling dictator of Guinea, Lansana
Conté. Armed soldiers arrived to arrest the attendees and a fight broke out. Diallo’s
brother was killed; Diallo and his father were beaten, detained, and told they would
be killed the following day. Diallo escaped before the soldiers could make good on
their threat. He fled first to Sierra Leone, then to The Gambia, before making his
way to the Netherlands.
Diallo entered the United States in 2004, using a fraudulent Dutch passport
under the Visa Waiver Program. After his authorization expired, he applied for
asylum and withholding of removal, claiming persecution “by the regime of
Lansana Conte . . . because we supported the opposition party that opposed
Conte’s regime.” In 2007, following an evidentiary hearing, an immigration judge
(“IJ”) denied relief. The BIA affirmed that decision in part in 2008. In 2010, our
Court vacated the decision of the BIA, finding that Diallo had established past
2
Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 3 of 8
persecution on account of political opinion, and remanded with instructions “to
consider whether the government can rebut the presumption of future persecution
with evidence of changed country conditions or Diallo’s ability to relocate.” Diallo
v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
596 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2010).
On remand, the BIA remanded to the IJ on the government’s motion. The IJ
conducted a hearing in 2011, but several continuances delayed its resolution. In
2017, after another hearing to evaluate the government’s assertion of changed
country conditions, the IJ denied relief. In 2018, the BIA affirmed. Diallo again
petitions for review of the BIA’s decision.
II. STANDARDS
Our review is of the decision of the BIA, since it did not expressly adopt the
IJ’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir.
2009). We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual
determinations for substantial evidence.
Id. The “highly deferential” substantial
evidence test requires us to view the record evidence in the light most favorable to
the BIA’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. Adefemi v.
Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The BIA’s decision
must stand if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
the record considered as a whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft,
257 F.3d 1262, 1284
(11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Lorisme v. INS,
129 F.3d 1441, 1444–45 (11th Cir.
3
Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 4 of 8
1997)). To reverse the BIA’s findings of fact, we must find that the record not only
supports reversal, but compels it.
Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027.
Asylum is discretionary relief available to refugees: aliens who are unable or
unwilling to return to their home country “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);
id.
§ 1158(b)(1). The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving that he is a
refugee.
Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To do so based on a well-founded fear of future
persecution, he must prove a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear
of persecution on account of a protected ground. Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289.
Alternatively, he can show past persecution and thereby create a rebuttable
presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at
1351. To rebut that presumption, the government must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence either that “[t]here has been a fundamental change
in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of
persecution,” or that “[t]he applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating
to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality.”
Id. at 1351–52 (quoting 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A) & (B)).
Withholding of removal is nondiscretionary relief available to aliens who
establish that their life or freedom would be threatened in their home country
4
Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 5 of 8
because of their “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than the well-founded fear of future
persecution standard required for asylum. Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
488 F.3d 884, 891 (11th Cir. 2007). The alien must show that there is a clear
probability of persecution if the alien is returned to his home country.
Id. An alien
who cannot meet the lower standard for asylum necessarily fails to establish
eligibility for withholding of removal.
Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s factual finding that circumstances in
Guinea have fundamentally changed such that Diallo no longer has a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of political opinion. He was persecuted in 2001 for
associating with the RPG when that party was in opposition to the Guinean
government.
Diallo, 596 F.3d at 1331. In his asylum application, he wrote that he
“fear[ed] going back to Guinea at this time, as the same regime that killed my
brother and threatened my life is still in power.” According to substantial evidence,
that regime is no longer in power.
In 2010, the longtime leader of the RPG, Alpha Condé, was democratically
elected president of Guinea. The U.S. State Department’s 2014 Human Rights
Report, upon which the BIA was entitled to rely heavily, see Imelda v. U.S. Att’y
5
Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 6 of 8
Gen.,
611 F.3d 724, 728 (11th Cir. 2010), supports the government’s contention
that, as a result of this change in regime, Diallo is not likely to face future
persecution. In contrast to a horrific 2009 incident in which pro-democracy
opposition to the junta government was violently suppressed, the report states that
there have been no recent politically-motivated disappearances and that many
political prisoners were released in 2013. Although the report does provide some
support for Diallo’s contention that Guinean security forces are not fully under the
RPG government’s control, it provides no support at all for his assertions that the
police and army are still targeting RPG members. Rather, the specific instances of
politically motivated violence the report cites appear to be against those who
oppose the RPG. For example, the political prisoners it names include individuals
who were being detained in connection with a 2011 attempt to assassinate
President Condé.
A fundamental change in circumstances can exist where there has been “a
change in the government that persecuted the petitioner.”
Imelda, 611 F.3d at 729;
see, e.g., Gitimu v. Holder,
581 F.3d 769, 774 (8th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s party
leader elected president; no political killings or prisoners); Uruci v. Holder,
558
F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s party controlled parliament). This record
supports that there has been such a change with the election of RPG leader Condé
to the presidency. To be sure, the record contains ample evidence that Guinea is
6
Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 7 of 8
still a troubled state, but “the mere fact that the record may support a contrary
conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.”
Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027. This record does not compel us to reverse the BIA’s
determination that conditions have changed in Guinea such that Diallo’s fear of
persecution is no longer well founded.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s rejection of Diallo’s new basis
for relief. Diallo argued on remand that he has a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on a combination of ethnicity and political opinion. He asserts
that because most members of his Fula tribe support a political party other than the
RPG, he is likely to face political persecution at the hands of his fellow Fula. The
BIA found that Diallo failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of
persecution on this basis, see Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289, noting that the 2014
Human Rights Report is silent as to intra-ethnic violence. Given that the sole
evidence Diallo offered on this point was his own testimony of seeing reports of
persecution on Facebook, we cannot say that the record compels reversal of the
BIA’s finding on this issue. And because Diallo has not established his eligibility
for asylum, he has also failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.
See Rodriguez
Morales, 488 F.3d at 891.
Finally, Diallo argues that he was “denied a full and fair hearing” when the
IJ conducted proceedings beyond the limited scope of our remand. To establish
7
Case: 18-10596 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 Page: 8 of 8
that there has been a violation of due process, Diallo must demonstrate “substantial
prejudice” from the asserted error. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
321 F.3d
1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 2003). He has not done so, nor can he, because we do not
review the IJ where the BIA has not expressly adopted its decision. Al
Najjar, 257
F.3d at 1284. “Any error committed by the IJ thus ‘may be “rendered harmless” by
the BIA’s application of the correct legal standard.’” Garrovillas v. INS,
156 F.3d
1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Shirazi-Parsa v. INS,
14 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th
Cir. 1994)). The BIA appropriately limited its findings to the issue we specified on
remand: whether the government had rebutted the presumption of future
persecution. To the extent that the IJ may have erred by making additional
findings, any error did not violate Diallo’s due process rights because he suffered
no prejudice when the BIA undertook its own, appropriate review.
Diallo’s petition for review is DENIED.
8
