## Facts

- The respondent, claiming to be a Mauritanian national of Peul ethnicity, applied for asylum and withholding of deportation based on alleged race- and ethnicity-based persecution.
- He testified that Mauritanian military personnel raided his home in Nouadhibou in June 1990, destroyed identity documents, and separated him from his family, who were forced into Senegal.
- He alleged he was beaten, detained from June 1990 to December 1991, and forced to perform hard labor; he claimed lasting injuries.
- He stated that after release he was expelled at gunpoint across a river into Senegal and that he and his family lived in a refugee camp there.
- He provided no documentary evidence corroborating identity, nationality, persecution, or refugee-camp presence, and offered no persuasive explanation for the absence of such evidence.
- The Immigration Judge found him deportable, denied asylum and withholding, and granted voluntary departure; the respondent appealed only the asylum and withholding denials.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant can meet the burden of proof for asylum with detailed testimony alone when it is reasonable to expect corroboration of identity, nationality, and key events.
2. Whether immigration adjudicators may require corroborating evidence for central facts even absent an explicit adverse credibility finding.
3. Whether failure to meet the asylum burden necessarily precludes withholding of deportation under the higher standard.

## Decision

- The Board of Immigration Appeals, sitting en banc, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The Board held the respondent failed to meet his burden of proof because he did not provide reasonably expected corroboration of identity, nationality, persecution, or refugee-camp residence, nor an adequate explanation for the lack of such evidence.
- Because he failed to satisfy the burden for asylum, he also failed to meet the more demanding standard for withholding of deportation.

## Legal Principles

- The asylum applicant bears the burden to establish refugee status, including proof of identity and nationality when those facts are central to the claim.
- Credible testimony may be sufficient in some cases, but where it is reasonable to expect corroborating evidence for material facts, such evidence should be produced or the applicant must adequately explain its absence.
- Adjudicators may find the burden of proof unmet based on the absence of reasonably available corroboration, even without making an express adverse credibility determination.
- Failure to establish eligibility for asylum generally forecloses withholding of deportation because withholding requires a higher likelihood of persecution.

## Conclusion

The BIA affirmed denial of relief because the respondent presented no reasonably expected corroboration of core elements of his claim—particularly identity, nationality, and asserted refugee-camp residence—and did not adequately explain the omission, leaving him unable to satisfy the burden for asylum or the higher standard for withholding.


Matter of M-D-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1180 (B.I.A. 1998)