The Honor able Kare n K. C aldwell, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0665n.06 F iled: Septem ber 6, 2007 No. 06-3928 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
L ORENC RAMO, Petitioner,
v. AL B ERT O G ON Z AL ES, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF THE BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Before: BOGG S, Chief Judge; ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge; and CALDWELL, District Judge * P ER CURIAM . L orenc Ramo petitions for revie w of a n order o f t h e Bo ard of I mmigration Appea ls denying his application for asylum and associated relief. Bec ause w e find that the deter mination of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) and the Immigration J udg e (“ I J ”) was supporte d by

substantial evidence , we de ny the petition for re view. I Ram o i s a n at i v e an d citizen of Albania. In Marc h of 1991 and 1992, he serve d as an ob se rv e r f or the De moc ratic Part

y a t hi s p oll ing pla c e in Ko rc e , A lba nia . F oll ow ingthe se e le c tio ns ,No. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

- 2 - he be c a me a

me mbe r of the De moc ratic Part y . He state s th a t se ve n in c ide nts le d h im t o f le e Al ba nia
and re qu e st a sylum

in t he Un ite d St a te s. First, in Fe bruar

y of 1991, he w as ar

rested, he ld for thre e day s, and wa s mistreated a nd be a te n. Se c on d, on

Ap ri l 28 , 1 99 7, wh ile g e tti ngc of fe e wi th t wo fr ie nd s a ft e r g ivi ng a sp e e c h at a De moc ratic Part

y (“ DP” ) r a lly , h e wa s sh ot i n b oth le g s b y an a rm e d g angand

thr e a te ne d w ithde a th if he c ontinued to speak a g ainst the So ci al i st Party . Third, on J une 29, 1997, af ter wor king a s an elec tion observer , he was hit by two men and told to stop talking a bout manipulation of the elec tion. Four th, on October

22, 1997, a cr iminal ga

ng destroy ed his clothing store and le ft a note thre atening to burn the store with him inside if he c ontinued to support the DP. Fifth, on September 20, 1998, afte r par ticipating in pr otests following the death of Azem Hadjar i, he was hit by the police a s they
wer e intervening and dispersing the protester s. Six th, on Marc h 22, 1999, afte r d en o u n cing g overnme nt corruption and the Socialist P arty during a ra dio interview, he and two fr iends wer e approa ched by three masked men who s tarted hitt ing, punc hing, a nd kicking him. W hen his frie nds tried to intervene , the men pull ed out weapons and thre atene d to shoot. S eventh, on August 1, 2000, he cla ims that he was involved in a DP political demonstration duringwhich he w as ar rested and held for two nights at the police station, wher e he c laims he was que stioned, mistreated, a nd beate n
un til he pa sse d o ut. After the Aug ust 1 incident, Ramo believed that he could no longe r st ay in Korc e and left for Gr ee ce o nAu gu s t2 0 , 2 0 0 0
. On ce i n Gr ee ce h e o b t ai n eda G re ekp as s p o rt
. He t h en t ra v el edt h ro u gh
se ve ra l c ountr ie s, int o Can a da , an d the n b y tr uc k in to t he Un ite d St a te s, arr ivi ngby bu s in De tr oit on September 10, 2000. Ramo states that he ha s two brothers a nd one sister. One of his brothersNo. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

- 3 - lives in the Detroit are a. His rema ining family lives in Salande, Albania . Upon ar rival in the United States, Ramo beca

me eng ag ed to a f

ormer g irlfriend of

his from Albania. She was also a member of the DP and the y

had par ticipated in political activities tog ether
. Ramo a pp lie d f or a sylum in Au g us t 2001
. Re mov a l pro c e e din g s we re ins tit ute d a g a ins t hi m and he c oncede d remova

bility . On Novembe r 18, 2004, an I J held a he aringon Ramo’s asylum application. The I J issued an oral decision denying Ramo asylum, withholding of re moval, and re lief under the Convention A g ainst Torture (“CAT” ). The I J found, first, that Ramo’s testimony was not
c re dib le and

that Ramo h a d o nly

sh ow n th a t h e ha d b e e n a me mbe r o f t

he De moc ra

tic Part y in Al ba nia . T he I J note d tha t Ramo ha d sub mit te d v ir tua lly no c or ro bo ra tio n o f h is t e sti mony , d e sp ite his wife’s k nowledg e of the events, his brother ’s knowledg e of the events (e specia lly , as he w as R am o ’s business partne r, the attack on Ramo’s store ), and muc h other possible evide nce ( such as
a ff ida vit s f ro m a ud ie nc e me mbe rs a t hi s r a lly sp e e c he s) . T he I J als o id e nti fi e d a n in c on sis te nc y

in the sp e lli ng of the la st name of on e of the me n wh o wa s wi th him on the nig ht t

hat he wa s sh ot: it
wa s sp e lle d “ B e ko lli ” in R a mo’ s a sylum a pp lic a tio n, “ B e g oll i” in h is t e sti mony , a nd “ B e ho lli” i n an af fidavit from a

friend. T he I J also dismissed the scar on one of Ramo’s leg s as evidenc e that he had bee n shot beca

use the I J , in his “lay

view,” de termined that a bullet t h at cr eate d those scar s would have ha d to hit a bone , which would have been inconsistent w ith Ramo’s statements of the
e xten t of his inj ur ie s. The I J then turned to the e vent that di rec tly prec ipitated Ramo’s depar ture from Albania. The I J no te d the dis c re pa

nc y be tw e e n Ram o’ s asy

lum a pp lic atio n, in wh ic h Ra

mo s ta te d th a t he wa s h e ld fo r t wo nig hts and

be a te n e xten siv e ly , a

nd Ramo’ s te st im on y , in

wh ic h h e c on c lud e d h e ha d o nlyNo. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

- 4 - been de tained for one night. Ramo, upon being questioned, also admitt ed that his asylum application
wa s in a c c ur a te wh e n it

state d th a t a ft e r t

he Au g us t 20 inc ide nt, he sta y e d a t ho me fo r t

wo we e ks un til leavingfor Gr eec e out of fe ar of being hara ssed. I n fac t, as demonstrate d by his passport, Ramo had trave led betwee n Albania, Gre ece , and Turkey sever al times dur ing that two-we ek peri o d
. Based
on all of the above fac tors, the I J found that Ramo’s testimony was not cre dible and that Ramo had not established past per secution. The I J then noted that eve n had he f ound Ramo to be credi b l e, he stil l would have de nied Ramo’s application for asylu m b ec au s e chang ed cir cumstance s in Albania mea n that, despite any pa st p e rs e c uti on , Ra

mo w ou ld not have a we ll- fo un de d fe ar of futur e pe rs e c uti on . Th e I J bas e d th is conclusion on both the var ious St ate De partment re ports in the rec ord and the fac t that Ramo’s brother, a lso an ac tivist in the DP, moved from Kor ce to a nother pa rt of Albania and has lived there p e a c e f u l l y. U p o na p p e a l , t h e B I A a f

f i r m e d an d a d o p t e d t h e d e c i s i o no f

t h e I J. II We reviewpurely leg al questions reg ardingthe re quirements of the I mmigration and Nationality

Act and the Convention Ag ainst Torture de novo
. Al i v . A sh c ro ft , 3 66 F .3 d 4 07 , 4 09 (6 th Cir. 2004). We review

the B I A’s cr ed i b i l i ty

finding s and fa ctual dete rminations for substantial
e vid e nc e . Sp e c ifica lly , w e sh ou ld u ph old the de nia l of

a sylum or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l if

it i s “supported by

rea sonable, substantial, a nd probative evidenc e on the rec ord considere d as a w hole.” Ibid. We “ca

nnot reve rse the boa

rd’s de termination simply beca use it would have decide d the matter differ ently .” Gishta v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 972, 978 ( 6th Cir. 2005). We may only reve rse a decisionNo. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

- 5 - if the evide nce “ not only

supports a contra

ry conclusion, but indeed compels it.” Mikhailev itch v. IN S , 14 6 F .3 d 38 4, 38 8 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 8) ; Hu an g v . A sh c ro ft , 113 F. App’ x 695, 699 (6th Cir. 2004);

se e als o 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ) (“[T]he a dminist rator’ s finding s of fac t a re conclusive unless any
rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .”). The substantial e vidence standard also g overns the ag ency ’s cre dibilit y finding s. See Y u v. As hc ro ft , 3 6 4 F. 3 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at “[ c] re d i b i l i t y d et er m i n at i o n s ar e f

i n d i n gs of fa ct” t h at ar e reviewe d “for substantial evidence , reve rsing only if any rea sonable a djudicator
wo u l d b e c o mp el l edt o co n cl u d e t o t h e co n t ra ry . ” (c i t at i o n s o m i t t ed ))
. Ad v er s e c re d i b i l i t y fi n d i n gs
are a c c or de d s ub sta

nti a l de fe re nc e be c a

us e the I J is, “ by

vir tue of [his ] ac qu ir e d s kil l, u

niq ue ly qualified to dec ide whethe r an alien’s testimony has about it the ringof truth.” Sa rv ia- Qu int an illa
v . I NS , 767 F.2d 1387, 1395 ( 9th Cir. 1985). Thoug h “an ad v er s e cr edibility finding is affor ded
su bs tan ti a l de fe re nc e , th e fi nd ingmus t be su pp or te d b y sp e c if ic re a so ns . A n a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty finding m u s t b e based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt's c laim. They

[si c] cannot be based on an irrelevant inconsistenc y .” Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 637 ( 6th Cir. 2005)(quoting Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 ( 6th Cir. 2004)). III The de cision to gr ant asylum is a two-step inquiry . The fir st step is wh et h er the applica nt qu a lif ie s a s a re fu g e e . O nly

if the pe tit ion e r q

ua lif ie s a s a re fu g e e may

the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l c ho os e to exercise his discre t i on and g rant a sy lum. Hu an g v . A sh c ro ft , 113 F. App’ x 695, 698 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Ou da v . I

NS , 324 F.3d 445, 451 (6th Cir. 2003)). The petitioning a lien has the burde n of proof at both stag es. Kla witt e r v . I NS , 97 0 F. 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 51 (6th Cir. 1992) (c iting 8 C.F.R. §§No. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

- 6 - 208.5, 242.17(c) ). A re fug ee is a ny person outside his or he r home co u n t ry who is unable or unwilling to re turn to that country beca use of perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on
acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a particula r social gr oup, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)
. A w e ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

mus t be bo th s ub

je c tiv e ly g e nu ine and

ob je c tiv e ly
rea sonable. Ab ay

v . A sh c ro ft , 368 F.3d 634, 637 ( 6th Cir. 2004). An alien who satisfies the burden of establishing past perse cution is presumed to have a we ll- f ounded fe ar of

future pe rsec ution. Pilica

v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004). This presumption may be re butted by

establishing by a pre pondera

nce of the evidence that since the per secution occ urre d, conditions in the alien’s country have chang ed to such an extent that the applicant no longe r has a well-founded f ear of being perse cuted upon r eturn. Id . at 950-51. A well-founde d fea r does not require proof that pe rsec ution is more li kely

than not. INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 431 ( 1987). Perse cution “re quires more than a f

e w is o late d

in c id e n ts o f

v e r b a l h ar a s s me n t o r

in ti mi d a ti o n , u n a c c o mp an ie d b y a ny p h y s i ca l punishment, infliction of harm, or sig nificant de privation of liberty .” Singh , 3 9 8 F
. 3 d at 401. When the alien’s family continues to live unharmed in the c ountry , this can be e vidence that
a we ll-founded fea

r is not objectively

rea sonable. Gu mb ol v . I NS , 815 F.2d 406, 412- 13 (6th Cir. 1987). An a lien is not required to pr oduce c orrobor ating evidenc e of pe rsec ution; the alien’s own testimony can be sufficie nt where believable , cr edible, and suf ficiently detailed. Pilica , 388 F.3d at 954. I n th is c a se , o ne of the I J’s g ro un ds fo r de nying Ramo as y lum wa s th a t si nc e Ramo w a s la st perse cuted, c onditions i n Albania ha ve cha ng ed to such a

n extent that he no longer wo u l d have aNo. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

Be cause chang ed conditions would cause us to de ny Ramo relief

even if he had be en found 1 cre dible, we d o n o t d ecide whether the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination was supported by su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e . Wh ile the su bs tant ia l e vid e nc e sta nd ard is a de fe re nti a l st and ard , a dv e rs e cre dibilit y finding s must “ be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt's c laim. They

cannot - 7 - well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence
. Ramo experience d the bulk of his claimed pe rsec ution from 1997-2000. The re cords c ontains evidenc e on conditions in Albania fr om 2000-2004. Whil e the 2000 State De partment re port ind ic a te s that th e re wa s so me e vid e nc e of po lit ic a lly

mot ivate d v iol e nc e , th os e fi nd ing s a re le ss appar ent in the 2001 State Depa rtment Profile of Asy lum Claims and Country Conditi ons. The 2002 State Depa

rtment Coun t ry R eport on Human Rights Practice s in Albania and the 2003 and 2004 State Depa

rtment Profiles of Asy lum Cl aims and Country Conditi ons do not identify any continuing po lit ic a lly

mot ivate d v iol e nc e . T his de mon str a te s a c ha ng e fr om t

he tim e that Ramo wa s in

Al ba nia to the prese nt situation. W hile it is true, as Ramo argues, that the I J did not address a repor t by the pr ivate g ro up Am ne sty I nte rn a tio na l, wh ic h do e s de ta il po lit ic a lly mot ivate d a bu se s, that r e po rt

is from 2001 and descr ibes only occur renc es from 2000 and earlier. There is no evidence in the rec ord post-2001 that indicates c ontinuing political violence
. Whil e these State Depa

rtmen t m aterials alone mig ht not be enoug h to convince e very fac t fi nd e r that Ramo wo uld have no fe ar of futur e pe rs e c uti on , the y a lso c e rt a inl y do no t c omp e l a
c on tr ary fi nd ing . F ur

the r, we have re lie d on , and c omm e nte d f

a vo ra bly on , St a te De pa

rtme nt r e po rt s in the past. S

e e M u l l a i v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 5 F. 3 d 635, 639 (6th Cir. 2004). Ther efor e, we hold that substantial ev i d ence supports the dec isions of the BIA and the I J denying Ramo’s petition for
a sylum
. 1No. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

be based on irrele vant i nconsistenc[ies].” Liti , 411 F.3d at 637. While some of the inconsistencies ide nti fi e d by th e I J seem to me e t th is s tand ard , o the rs , s uc h a s th e va ri e d s pe lli ng s o f t

he name “B eg olli,” are more likely to be the re sult of translation/tr ansliteration er rors than de ceit that g oes to the hear

t of Ramo’s claim. - 8 - Whil e the leg al standar ds g overningthe g rant of a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval under the I NA, and w ithholding of re moval under the CAT differ , with a few exceptions ( that are not releva nt here ), the leg al standar ds g overningwithholding of r emoval and r el i ef under the CAT a re stric ter than those g overningthe g rant of a sy lum. See M ikhailevitch , 1 46 F .3 d at 38 9; Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 404 ( 6th Cir. 2005). As we conclude that Ramo is not entitled to asy lum, he is also not entitled to withholding of re moval or re lief under the CAT. IV Ramo’s difficult task of c onvincing us that the I J ’s and BIA’s dec isions were not supporte d b y s u b s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e w a s c e rt a i n l y n o t m a d e e a s i e rw h e nh i s c o u n s e l , C ar l M
. W e i d e m a n , III , failed to a ppear for tele phonic oral argument befor e this c ourt. Mr. Weideman has since prof fer ed
an explanation f

or his a bsence , namely that he has be en havingproblems with his telephone sy stem that preve nt him from consistently rec eiving calls. This, of cour se, does not explain why Mr. Weideman, upon not rec eiving a ca ll from this court at the t ime of scheduled oral arg ument, failed to call thi s cour

t t o in qu ir e a s to th e s tatu s o f th e ar g u me n t –

ano r a l a r g u me n t t h a t h e r e qu e s te d. This is espec ially worrisome considering his statement to the cour t that at the time of ora l argument he kn e w o f the pr ob le ms wi th his te le ph on e sy ste m. Ne ve rt he le ss, thi s c ourt

g a ve the c a se the same
car eful c onsideration that would have occur red had Mr. Weideman appea red. We ther efor e deny

the pr o s e motion from Mr. Ramo reque sting that a n additional argument be sche duled.No. 06-3928

Ramo v. Gonzales

- 9 - V For the re asons set out above , we DENY the pe tition for review
.