*1 Before B AUER P OSNER , H AMILTON , Circuit Judges . H AMILTON Circuit Judge . Bathusi Musa, citizen Bot swana, petitions denial asylum, withholding removal, protection Torture, all based fear force female genital mutila tion (FGM) returns. We grant portion peti tion requesting removal. Substantial evi dence support agency’s conclusion *2 2 15 ‐ 2046 subjected FGM. On the asylum applica tion, however, we lack jurisdiction the agency’s determination Musa’s was untimely. We must dismiss portion. We deny the portion petition seeking relief under the Convention Against Torture because agency err finding government would acquiesce forced FGM.
Musa entered United States April on visi tor’s visa. met United States citizen and they married. Musa’s husband filed I ‐ “alien relative” petition behalf, and Musa applied same time adjust status permanent resident. U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1255(a); 245.2; In Hashmi I. & N. Dec. 785, 789–90 (BIA 2009). In June 2009, however, Department Homeland Security denied I ‐ petition and ap plication adjust status. problem was hus band discovered ended previous marriage. In November placed removal proceedings because visa expired while those applications pending. In April husband divorced.
In October applied asylum, removal, protection feared returned force Musa, who belongs Kalanga tribe, said mother grandmother hold strict traditional beliefs and think a woman undergo FGM her entire family be cursed. grandmother is, in Musa’s words, a “medi cine woman” and has performed FGM on other women in past.
When she lived Botswana, Musa said, her family two occasions tried unsuccessfully force her undergo mutilation. On first attempt, when she was Musa was kidnapped a group women and brought a place where other girls were undergoing She managed escape through bathroom window before procedure could carried out, and then—suspecting her had instigated events—hid at friend’s house. mother eventually acknowledged family’s involvement and promised force her procedure, which point Musa returned home. second attempt came year later. Musa said she was
attacked several men who dragged her into some bushes attempted “circumcise” her. They told Musa mother had sent them. Musa able break away, but she sustained bruises all over body. Musa did report incident police, she said, everyone accept ed practiced believed police take accusation seriously. testified had two friends who had died from undergoing 2004. continued live parents until later then moved another city Her parents able contact over phone, but disclose address.
More recently, since leaving Botswana, said parents found significantly older partner (he is Musa is now 30), who could help fami ‐ ly financially. To marry older man, Musa says, she undergo Her father, who used resist having procedure performed her, wants go through because he needs money from suitor help his struggling business. is afraid re ‐ turn Botswana because she want undergo FGM marry this man.
Further about FGM in Botswana was present ‐ ed by one friends from Botswana, Gaomongwe Selawe said FGM was practiced in Botswana as initi ‐ ation ritual for girls. said she had heard FGM practiced some members Kalanga tribe. And had friends who had undergone procedure in Bot swana. Selawe said many women do talk about ing forced FGM because is private ritual. record before immigration contained doc umentary showing FGM prevalent State Department Country Report Human Rights Practices for stated: “There no known cases physically harmful traditional practices, such female genital mutilation.” According UNICEF, “not widely practiced” Botswana, though its port nevertheless counted million girls Africa risk each year. Finally, attached letter writ ten mother imploring return marry older man had found for her. denied application asylum, removal, relief. eligible asylum, found, filed timely within one year her arrival United States. The judge also found that neither her marriage nor divorce from her hus ‐ band was a changed circumstance justifying her delay. And even if denial application for adjustment status June was a changed circumstance, judge found, waited unreasonably long time from that date— more than year—to file for asylum.
The judge denied Musa’s request ‐ moval because he determined there was not clear probabil ‐ ity that she returned she would be subjected FGM. The judge believed Musa’s testimony fami ‐ ly practices two occasions had attempted subject forcibly. The judge concluded, however, those incidents did not amount past persecution because had actually undergone procedure. The believed Musa’s she feared returning Botswana, but he did regard fear reasonable be cause there was no evidence record showing was practiced all, let alone practiced widely noted Musa’s admission desire avoid marriage much older man principal reason want return Botswana, fear
Finally, denied request protection presented any showing gov ernment torture acquiesce tor ture anyone else. Board Appeals affirmed immi
gration judge’s decision. agreed judge’s conclusion untimely cause divorce neither changed nor extraordinary circumstances and she did not file the applica ‐ tion a reasonable amount of time after the denial of her petition for adjustment status. Board then explained that it agreed with the judge’s denial and claims she “has been able provide objective country condi ‐ tions that corroborates stated fear FGM.” agreed with the that credible, but it supplemented judge’s reasoning pro ‐ posing that could relocate a different part country: “in view paucity occurring Bot ‐ swana, especially view fact that respondent need return specifically hometown, we cannot conclude Judge clearly erred con cluding respondent did show … persecu tion or torture—such as FGM—is occur.” leads off petition for judicial review with a weak challenge agency’s determination did show changed circumstances materially affecting el igibility for asylum. U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D); § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). She recognizes we lack jurisdiction such determination absent related legal consti tutional argument, see U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); Almutairi Holder 2013); Restrepo 964–65 2010), so tries frame disagreement with agency legal issue. disagrees Board’s conclusions divorce constitute changed extraordinary cir cumstances, unreasonable for waited more than year apply after denial adjustment status. *7 7 15 2046
Those disagreements do not raise a justiciable legal ques tion challenging basis of agency’s determination. disputes only application of law circumstance, not governing legal rules. We thus lack jurisdiction denial application. See Restrepo , 610 F.3d at 964–65; Viracacha v. Mukasey , 518 F.3d 511, 515–16 (7th Cir. 2008). next argues substantial evidence does
support denial withholding re moval wrongly disregarded about family’s FGM practice—testimony he explicit ly credited. We agree. fact FGM widespread whole does contradict statements about family’s practice.
We held consistently FGM form persecu tion. Balogun v. Ashcroft , 374 F.3d 492, 499 (7th Cir. 2004); Olowo v. Ashcroft , 368 F.3d 692, 702–03 (7th Cir. 2004); see In Kasinga , 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 358 (BIA 1996). Still, bears high burden establish eligibility removal: must show clear probability persecution if removed Borovsky v. Holder , F.3d 917, 921 (7th Cir. 2010); Guardia v. Mukasey , F.3d 968, (7th Cir. 2008); C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). A clear probability means appears more than suffer persecution removed. Bitsin 2013); see Zheng Gonzales 2005); 1208.16(b)(2). here erred placing too much weight absence background confirming prior cases large. absence documented cases country contra dict Musa’s testimony—testimony judge explicitly credited—that her family practiced FGM. judge found testified credibly her family practiced FGM, they twice attempted force her it, her family—including her father, who once opposed subjecting practice—now wants her enter into conditioned upon undergoing it.
Whether FGM is widely practiced has no bearing on whether Musa’s own is subject it. judge credited Musa’s testimony about family’s practice. He erred failing acknowledge likelihood subjected upon turning acceding marriage. Musa’s credible testimony sufficient sustain burden proof. Neither judge nor denied claim based lack corroboration Real ID Act, U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). (Under act, an may require an applicant who testifies credibly provide reliable corroborating as well. Tian 2014).) erred characterizing principal motivation seeking removal as fear marrying much older man rather than fear Once accepts applicant’s about fear per secution as genuine, existence other fears un dermine claim. Mohideen Gonzales 2005) (“an individual may qualify his persecutors more than one motive long as one motives specified Na tionality Act”).
The Board’s conclusion could safely relocate another part of the country problematic. immi ‐ gration did address whether could relocate different part avoid family’s pressure FGM, whether could reasonably be ex pected do so. C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). possibility relocation, matter, even argued by the government before the Board.
As an initial matter, it clear the Board has the authority make finding the first instance could relocate. 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (“The Board engage de novo findings fact determined immigration judge. Facts determined the immigra tion … shall be reviewed only determine whether findings are clearly errone ous.”). Even Board permitted determine relocation issue first instance, its cursory declaration about feasibility relocation gave no rationale. address whether ability relocate safely might be compromised light now faces greater danger family’s marital arrangements father’s apparent change heart garding his prior opposition undergoing “‘[I]t seems possible … agency might compelled reach opposite conclusion depending how evaluates record after remand.’” Kone 2010), quoting Gomes Gonzalez 2007).
We add agency has waived any argument about denying based failure provide ev idence government involvement acquiescence *10 10 15 2046 practice of Botswana. Neither the nor the Board relied ground as basis deny with holding. SEC v. Chenery , 318 U.S. 80, 87–88 (1943); Sarhan v. Holder , 658 F.3d 649, 661 (7th Cir. 2011); Moab v. Gonzales , F.3d 656, (7th Cir. 2007).
Although we vacate and remand the decision regarding withholding removal, we agree with the Board is entitled relief under the Against Tor ture. implementing regulations define torture “severe pain or suffering … inflicted by or the instigation or with the consent acquiescence public official.” C.F.R. 208.18. Female genital mutilation is torture, course. But the err by finding failed show torture is carried out the acquiescence government Khan 2014); Ishitiaq Holder n.3 2009); §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). justifiably discounted Selawe’s tes timony unswayed Musa’s, and has pointed record substantiate testi mony government permitted subject even reported their attempts 2003.
Accordingly, portion petition relating request is DISMISSED, portion petition relating removal is GRANTED, portion petition relating protection Con vention DENIED. case remanded Appeals.
[1] defined World Health Organization collection “procedures involve partial total removal external female genitalia, other injury female genital organs non medical reasons.” Female Genital Mutilation World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/.