Nkounkou

MEMORANDUM *

Martial-Bertrand Nkounkou (“Nkounkou”), a citizen of the Republic of Congo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of Nkounkou’s requests for asylum and withholding of deportation. We deny Nkounkou’s petition for review.

Disregarding how Nkounkou bought his airplane ticket to this country and why he stayed for a year in Hong Kong, see Akin-made v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999), the BIA’s ruling that Nkounkou did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution is nevertheless supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Nkounkou lived safely in the outskirts of Brazzaville during the height of civil unrest and was able to travel in and out of the country. Although he submits this was because he was under a Colonel’s protection, the BIA was not compelled to accept his explanation as it was wholly unsubstantiated. Nkounkou never received a death threat or heard from others that Sassou-Nguesso’s militia had targeted him. While his house was destroyed, it was after his family abandoned it…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The IJ’s denial of asylum to Martial Bertrand Nkounkou, who is a member of the Lari ethnic group and a close associate of Pascal Lissouba, the former President of the Republic of Congo (“Congo”), is predicated on an adverse credibility finding that cannot be sustained by the administrative record.

The credibility findings address five different matters. As the majority appears to acknowledge, two of these—related to Nkounkou’s conduct in Hong Kong—are inappropriate grounds for an adverse credibility finding. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir.1999). (At a minimum, the petition should be granted because these two improper grounds are inextricably intertwined with the adverse credibility determination.) Two additional findings relating to Nkounkou’s relocation to the outskirts of Brazzaville and his various excursions across the border to the city of Kinshasa rest on mere speculation by the IJ as opposed to specific and cogent reasons supported by the record. See Mosa v. Rogers, 89 F.3d 601, 604-05 (9th Cir.1996). Finally, Nkounkou explained to the IJ that he could not reveal the proper name of his protector, The Colonel, because…