## Facts

- Cheikh Tambadou, a Muslim native of Mauritania of Soninke ethnicity, alleged persecution by Mauritania’s dominant ethnic group and government forces.
- He supported (but was not a formal member of) the Liberation Front of Africans in Mauritania (FLAM), which advocated equality among ethnic groups and was viewed by the government as a threat.
- When Tambadou was about 15, Mauritanian officers stopped him, his father, and his brother in the fields, demanded identification, tore up the family’s papers, and accused them of being non-nationals.
- Officers detained Tambadou for about two months, beat him, and coerced him to “confess” he was Senegalese.
- Tambadou and other detainees were taken to the Senegal River and ordered to cross into Senegal or be killed; officers fired at them during the crossing, and Tambadou was injured when his canoe was hit and capsized.
- He was hospitalized in Senegal, then lived in a refugee camp for roughly five years before traveling to the United States.
- In the United States, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and voluntary departure.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding of a “fundamental change in circumstances” in Mauritania sufficient to rebut an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
2. Whether the BIA erred by relying on changed country conditions while mischaracterizing the IJ as making an adverse credibility finding and without adopting or rejecting the IJ’s separate “safe haven in Senegal” rationale.
3. Whether the BIA unlawfully relied on general statements in a country report without an individualized analysis of Tambadou’s risk in light of record evidence.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded.
- The court held the BIA’s changed-circumstances determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the agency relied largely on generalized country-report statements while failing to address contrary, applicant-specific evidence.
- The court held the BIA must conduct an individualized analysis of how alleged changes affect the particular applicant, rather than issuing a generalized conclusion.
- Because the BIA issued its own opinion and did not adopt the IJ’s “safe haven in Senegal” rationale, the court could not affirm on the IJ’s alternative ground.
- The court noted the BIA incorrectly stated the IJ had relied in part on an adverse credibility finding, casting doubt on the BIA’s understanding of the record and reinforcing the need for remand.

## Legal Principles

- When the BIA finds “changed country conditions” rebut an applicant’s fear of future persecution, that finding must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- The agency may not rely on general or conclusory references to country reports while ignoring material, contrary evidence bearing on the applicant’s risk.
- The BIA must provide an individualized analysis explaining how changed conditions affect the particular applicant and similarly situated persons.
- On judicial review, courts assess the BIA’s stated grounds; where the BIA does not adopt the IJ’s rationale, a reviewing court generally may not affirm on the IJ’s alternative basis.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated and remanded because the BIA’s denial of asylum rested on an inadequately supported changed-conditions finding derived from generalized country-report statements without addressing contrary evidence or explaining how conditions in Mauritania affected Tambadou’s specific risk, and because the BIA did not clearly adopt or reject the IJ’s separate rationale.


Tambadou v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2006)