A federal appeals court has upheld the denial of asylum for Amadou Sy, a Mauritanian national who claimed he would face torture and death if returned to his home country. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled on Tuesday that Sy’s testimony was not credible, citing a series of nearly identical stories about past arrests and significant contradictions in his evidence.
The decision, authored by Circuit Judge Amul R. Thapar, denies Sy’s petition for review and affirms previous rulings by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The case is Amadou Sy v. Pamela Bondi.
A Pattern of “Striking Similarities”
Sy, a member of the Fulani ethnic group, entered the United States illegally and was later detained. During removal proceedings, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He alleged that Mauritanian police had arrested and tortured him four times between 2011 and 2023 due to his race and his participation in protests.
However, the court found Sy’s accounts of these events “inherently implausible.” In his testimony, Sy claimed that in 2011, 2021, and 2022, he was arrested, held for exactly five days, stripped, beaten, and left for dead, only to be rescued by a passerby and taken to a hospital each time.
“Common sense dictates that there would be at least some variation in how he was arrested each time over a span of 12 years,” Judge Thapar wrote. “And it surely is not unreasonable… for the immigration judge to doubt that each event occurred in exactly the same way.”
Contradictory Claims and Missing Evidence
The court also highlighted major discrepancies between Sy’s written application and his oral testimony. While Sy’s initial paperwork made no mention of his family being persecuted, he later testified that his two brothers were arrested and beaten alongside him during the same incidents.
When questioned about the omission, Sy first claimed he had mentioned them, then suggested his lawyer “probably didn’t write it.” The court noted that one of those brothers currently lives in New York but did not provide an affidavit or testimony to support Sy’s claims.
Additional “holes” in the story included:
- The Passport: Sy claimed he obtained a passport by bribing the “white Mauritanian police”—the same authorities he alleged were actively trying to kill him.
- Medical Records: Despite claiming he was nearly beaten to death three times and hospitalized, Sy provided no medical documentation.
- Travel History: Sy traveled through Morocco, Spain, El Salvador, and Mexico but did not seek asylum in any of those countries before arriving in the U.S.
No “Pattern of Persecution” Found
Beyond Sy’s personal credibility, the court addressed his argument that black Fulanis face a general “pattern or practice” of persecution in Mauritania.
The court rejected this claim, distinguishing between “widespread discrimination” and “persecution.” Referring to expert testimony provided by Professor Charlotte Walker-Said, the court acknowledged that Fulanis may face marginalization and economic hardship, but ruled these do not meet the legal threshold of state-sponsored punishment or harm.
“Fulanis are the largest ethnic group of black Africans in Mauritania—they’re not a small or isolated minority,” the opinion stated, noting that Sy failed to provide persuasive evidence of other Fulanis being persecuted.
The ruling concludes that because Sy was found not to be credible, he is ineligible for asylum or protection from removal.
READ: The End Of “Spring Forward”? Florida Sen. Rick Scott Makes A New Push To Lock The Clock
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
