I na Kocibelli was an unmarrie d child at the time of F atmire Koc ibelli’s first application for 1 asylum a nd was included in he r mother’s application. (Pet’rs’ App. at 485.) 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)( 3). NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0508n.06 No. 08-3580 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT FAT MI RE KOCI BEL L Iand IN A K O C IB E LLI, P etitioner , v. ERI C H. HOL DER, ATTORNEY

G E N E RA L, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON REVI EW FROM THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

O P I N I O N

Before: M ARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH, AND WHITE, Circuit Jud ges WHI TE, Circuit J udg e. Petitioner Fatmire Kocibelli and her da ug hter Ina Koc ibelli seek re view of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals’ ( BIA) final decision denying asylum a nd withholding of r emoval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (I NA). We DENY Kocibelli’s petition for r eview. 1 I. BACKG ROUND Fatmire Kocibe lli was born i n L ez h e, Albania on October 12, 1958. I n 1981, she marr ied Veli Kocibe lli, with whom s he had two c hildren: Selda, who was born in 1983, and I na, who wa s born in 1988. I n Aug ust 1997, the couple sepa rate d due to Veli’s c oncer ns about Fatmire’s politicalK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

Kocibelli did not include all of these inc idents in her wr itten submiss ions and some of them 2 are arguably

inconsistent with those submis sions. See discussion infra S e c t i o nII. 2 activism. Veli t ook custody of S elda a nd Fatmire took custody

of Ina. The couple did not, howeve r, obtain a leg al divorce

. Pr ior to a nd a ft er the se pa

ratio n, Ko c ibe lli wa s in vo lve d in pr o- de moc ra c y

a c tiv iti e s, eventua lly

joining the De mocratic Part y of Albania

on J anuar

y 21, 1991. During the dec ade that fo llo we d, sh e c la ims to h a ve be e n inv olv e d in De moc ra tic pa rt y me e tin g s a

nd de mon str a tio ns , mo st notably speakingat September

1998 a n d O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 D emocr atic Party

demonstrations and ser

ving

as a monitor dur ing A lbania’s Oc tober 2000 e lections. She furthe r alleg es that she wa s acc osted and hau le d to th e p o li c e s tati o n o n a t le a s t tw o o c c a s io n s . D u r in g th is p e r io d , K o c ib e ll i a ls o beg an a

re l at ionship with Arbin Kola, a we ll-known wre stler in Albania who w orked a s a bodyg uard f or Socialist Party members. Kocibelli alleg es that over time her re lationship with Kola gr ew violent

and he be g an in a

pp ro pr ia te ly

tou c hin g I na . A c c or din g to K oc ibe lli ’s te sti mony , in Ap ri l 20 02 , K ola

se ve re ly be a t he r a

nd thr e a te ne d to kil l he r f

or sp e a kin g ou t a g a ins t th e Soc ia lis t g ov e rn me nt. Following this incident, Kocibelli made plans to leave Albania

. 2 Kocibelli and her daug hter I na arr ived in the United States on or ar ound May 9, 2002. They

e nte re d th e c ountr

y a t Mia mi Inte rn a tio na l A ir po rt us ingfr a ud ule nt G re e k p a ssp or

ts that K oc ibe lli purc ha se d in

Al ba nia . A t th is t ime , K oc ibe lli ma de a sw orn state me nt t o a n I NS o ff ic e r. (P e t’ rs ’ App. at 512-16.) During the interviewshe explai ned that she w as trave ling f rom Albania a

nd seeking asylum be cause she fea red that her boy friend would kill her and Ina. ( Id. at 516.) On Ma

y 16, 2002, the I

NS conducte d a cr edible fe ar inter view, duringwhich Koc ibelli described he rself a sK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

At the hea ring Kocibelli said that she did not lose her job be cause of her political beliefs and 3 that she did not remembe r making this statement to the asylum officer . Moments later, howe ver, she apolog ized and said “[m] ay be bec ause I was very stressed or may be I said things that I

don’t, Iam not awar e of.” (Pet’rs’ App. at 173.) 3 “ac tive with the Democr atic Party ” and expressed her fea r of “ being attacke d and beaten by members of the Socialist-bac ked g overnme nt of Albania a nd her e x -boy friend, w ho is also a member of the Socialist Party and the local police .” ( Id. at 497, 501.) S he also c laimed that her daug hter told her tha t K o la “ w a s tr

y in g to to u c h h e r b r e a s ts ” an d th a t f o ll o w in g th is in c id e n t K o c ib e ll i fea red he r boy friend. (

Id. at 502.) Whe n th e a sylum of

fi c e r as ke d K oc ibe lli a

bo ut p ro ble ms t

hat r e su lte d f

ro m he r D e moc ratic Party membership, Koc ibel l i explained that she lost her job at a la boratory ; that the police c alled

3 her “ into the office sever al times,” questioned he r, and told her “leave her e or you will have conseque nces f

or the re st of y our life” ; that she “r ece ived many threats”; and that the police pushed her dur ing the 2001 elec tions. ( Id. at 502-03.) B ey ond these incid en t s , she cla imed “nothing happen[ed].” (

Id. at 503.) T h e IN S d e e m e d K o c i b e l l i a r e m o v a b l e n o n - c i t i z e nw h o l a c k e d v a l i d e n t r y d o c u m e n t s . In the Miami-base d remova l p ro ce ed i ng s that followed, Koc ibelli admitted the alleg ations in the amende d Notices to Appe ar, conce ded remova bility and, on J anuar

y 29, 2003, applied for

asylum and withhol d in g o f

r e mo v a l u

n d e r th e I N A an d th e U n it e d

N a ti o n s Co n v e n ti o nA g a in s t T o rtu r e. ( See Pe t’ rs ’ Ap p. a t 484- 94 .) At so me po int a ft e r ar ri vin g in the Un ite d St a te s, ho we ve r, Ko c ibe lli le arn e d th a t V e li a

nd Se lda we re liv ingin M ic hig an and th e fam ily re un ite d. As a

re su lt o f t

hisK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

Acc ording to a supplemental wr itten statement (the se cond stateme nt) and her testimony on 4 the sta nd , th e mov e to M ic hig an “ did no t pr ov ide the sa fe ty

[Ko c ibe lli and

I na ] de sir e d” be c a

us e Selda’s fianc e, I lir Markvuka j, se x ually assaulted Ina. Ar ound this ti me, Selda attempted to e nd the relationship. Markvukaj rea cted with violence , admitting he ha d rape d I na. He then fled Michig an but continued to hara ss Selda via phone. When Mar kvukaj e v entually

returne d to Michiga

n, the police ar rested him for

rape . I n the sec ond statement, Koc ibelli also re l at ed suspicious eve nts that prece ded a br eak- in at Kocibelli’ s h o m e. Dur ing the burg lary , the Kocibe llis l ost money , jewelr y , and eve ry

document “conc erning I lir.” (Pet’rs’ App. at 417.) A month late r someone broke into Koc ibelli’s car

. Ac c or din g to K oc ibe lli thi s sc are d h e r f a mil y int o d ro pp ingthe c a se a g a ins t Ma rk vuka j. I n c on tr a st, Kocibelli’s daug hters testi fied the c ase c ontinued and the jury found Mar

kvukaj not g uilty . Evidence in the rec ord indicates that he was later convicted in the United King dom of human traf ficking and profiting from prostitution. Acc ording to her ora l te stimony at the hea

ring , Kocibelli also met a w oman named V era Gjetaj at a c hurc h in

Mic hig an. Gj e ta

j to ld K oc ibe lli that w he n s he wa s in Al ba nia , s he saw K ola

wi th Markvuka

j. A t the hear ing, Gjetaj testified that when she saw Markvuka j in Albania, he told her he was in prison in the Unit ed S tates for trying to make a whole fa mily disappea r. (Pet’r s’ App. at 270.) 4 reloc ation, on October

10, 2003, Kocibelli filed a motion for a chang e of venue to D etroit. The c ourt g rante d the motion on October 14, 2003. 4 After the cour t gr anted the c hang e o f venue, Kocibe lli subm itted a sec ond application for asylum and withholding of r emoval on Aug ust 24, 2005. (Pet’rs’ App. at 448-83.) L ike her prior

a pp lic a tio n, it fo c us e d on he r pol iti c a l ac tiv iti e s and the pe rs e c uti on – in the fo rm of be a tin g s, thr e a ts, and attempted a

rre sts – that she suffe red at the hands of the A lbanian g overnme nt. Specifica lly she claimed the police beat her during poli tical campaig ns and rallies in J anuar y 1991 and Oc tober 1999. She also descr ibed her

abusive re lationship with Kola and said that he “attempted to rape” I na. ( Id. at 459.) Kocibelli di d not, howeve r, allege that the police e ver suc cessf ully arr ested or de tained her and af firmatively answe red “No” to the application question “[h] ave y ou or y our family membersK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

5 ever been a ccuse d, char g ed, arr ested, detained, interrog ated, convicted and sente nced, or imprisoned in any country other than the United States.” ( Id. at 453.) Kocibelli also wrote about what oc curr ed whe n she worke d as an e lection monitor for the Democr atic Party

during the Octobe r 2000 ele ction. Acc ording to Kocibelli, when she “dema nded that the elec tion c ommissi on take a ll the nece ssary measure s not to allow any one to put in the ballot box fra ud ballots,” a S ocialist voter “pulled me by forc e out of the voting cente r, punche d me and threatened me to c lose my mouth or he will disappe ar my children a nd me.” ( Pet’rs’ App. at 461.) T h e IJ co n d

u ct edh ea ri n gs o nFe b ru a r y 1 7 an d M ar ch 3 , 2 0 0 6

. Du ri n g t h es e p ro ce ed i n gs Kocibe l l l i reiter ated much of the content of

her va rious submissi on to the I mmigration Court, but also adde d new a lleg ations, such as detentions at the hands of the Albanian police , and a suspicious

conver sation with a woman named Ver a Gjeta j. Se e su pra no te 4. She a lso a lte re d p ri or a lle g a tio ns , sometimes in minor way s (e.g . instead of g oing to the hospital at 3:00 am, Kocibelli alleg ed that she returne d at 3:00 am) a

nd s o m et i m es i n major wa y s (e.g . Kocibelli alter ed her story reg ardingthe

manner in which she wa s threate ned wh en s h e wo rked a s an ele ction monitor in October 2000)

. Mark Sa luk u, Ve ra Gj e ta

j, F ra n Ka c a j, an d Seld a

and I na Ko c ibe lli a lso te sti fi e d at th e pr oc e e din g s. On J une 30, 2006 the I J issued an opinion concludingthat Kocibelli and he r witnesses ha d not made a cre dible showing due to numerous inconsistenc ies betwe en Koc ibelli’s written and ora l te s ti mo n y an d th e te s ti mo n y

o f v ar io u s w it

n e s s e s . H e th e nd e n ie d

a ll f o r ms o f r e li e f an d o rder ed Kocibelli re moved to Albania. He also conc luded that Kocibe lli had filed a fr ivolous application.K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

6 Kocibelli re quested the B I A re view the I J ’s dec ision. On April 24, 2008, the B I A held that the I J “er red in finding that the responde nt f iled a fr ivolous asy lum application,” but upheld the I J ’s

a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y

f i n d i n g . ( P e t ’ r s ’ A p p . a t1

- 3

. ) W i t h r e g ar d t o t h e l a t t e r

c o n c l u s i o n , t h e B IA

a c kn ow le dg e d th a t “ no t a ll o f t he re a so ns c ite d by the I mmi g ra tio n J ud g e in s up po rt

of his a dv e rs e

c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n g o to the he art of the le a d r e sp on de nt’ s c la im, ” bu t de te rm ine d th a t a t le a st five did. ( Id. at 2.) There fore , the BIA conclude d there was substantial e vidence supporting the I J ’s deter mination “that the lead r espondent, a nd particula

r wi tnesses testifying on he r beha lf, are not

cre dible for the r easons state d” within the I J ’s opinion. ( Id. ) Kocibelli petitioned for r eview by this court on May

13, 2008. II. AN AL YSI S Under 8 U.S.C

. § 1252 appellate courts have “jurisdiction to reviewthe B I A’s dec ision

a ff ir min g the I J’s d e nia l of a sylum , w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l, a

nd re lie f u nd e r t he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture .” Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 400-01 (6th Cir. 2005). How ever , when a BIA opinion adopts the I J ’s reasoning , this court has also revie wed portions of t he I J ’s decision direc tly

. Id

. In

remova l proce eding s, this court review s leg al conc lusions de novo and “f actua l finding s under the substantial evidence standar d.” Ndrecaj v. M ukasey , 522 F.3d 667, 672 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (fa ctual fi nd ing s) ; Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 527 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (l ega l conclusions). Unde r the substantial evidence standard, “ fin d i n gs o f fa ct ar e ‘c onclusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .’” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 ( 6th Cir. 2004). This means th at “t he petitioner must show that the e vidence prese nted was so c ompelling that no

rea sonable fa ctfinder

could fa il to find the requisite perse cution or fea r of perse cution.” Ou da v . I NS ,K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

7 32 4 F .3 d 4 45 , 4 51 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; see also Almuhtaseb v . Gonzales , 4 5 3 F

. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 9 ( 6 th Cir. 20 06 ) ( “ To re ve rs e the B I A’ s d e te rm inatio n w e mus t f ind that th e e vid e nc e ‘n ot o nly su pp or ts a contra ry conclusion but indeed c om pe ls i t
. ’” ( q u o t i n g Yu , 3 64 F .3 d at 70 2) ). An I J’s c re dib ili ty deter mination is a f

actua l finding subjec t to the substantial evidence standard. Yu , 364 F.3d at 703 (“Cre dibilit y

deter minations are f

indings of f

act . . .” ). Under the I NA, “the Attorney

Gene ral may g rant asy lum to an alien” i f “the Attorney Gene ral deter mines that such alien is a r efug ee w ithin the meaning of section 1101(a )(42) (A) of this ti tle.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(A)

. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101 a refug ee is a ny person outside of his or he r

c ountr y of natio na lity

“ wh o is un a

ble or un wi lli ngto r e tur

n to , and is una ble or un wi lli ngto a

va il himself or her self of the protec tion of, that country beca use of pe rsec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of perse cution on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, national i t y , m em b ership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” The a pplicant bea

rs the burde n of establishing ref ug ee status. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b) (1)( B) (i). The a pplicant may

be able to meet this burden throug h his or her ow n testimony , without

c or ro bo ratio n, “ but on ly

if the a pp lic ant s a tis fi e s th e tr ie r o f f a c t that the a

pp lic ant’ s te sti mony

is cred ib le, is pe rs ua siv e , and re fe rs to sp e c if ic fa c ts su ff

ic ie nt to de mon str a te that the a pp lic ant is a

re fu g e e .” 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( ii) ; see also id. at § 1158(b)( 1)(A) (providing that the Attorney Gene ral a nd Secre tary

of Homela

nd Security

establish proce dures a

nd require ments for de termining that an alien is a

ref ug ee a s defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (42))

. To make su c h a

sh ow ing , a

n a pp lic ant f or a sylum c an e sta bli sh that he o r s he su ff

e re d p a st pe rs e c uti on in the a

pp lic ant’ s c ountr

y of natio na lity on a c c ount of on e of the a fo re me nti on e d f

a c tor s,K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

8 cre ating a pre sumption t hat the applica nt has “a well-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on the basis of the

or ig ina l cla im. ” 8 C.F .R. §1 20 8. 13 (b )( 1) ; see also Namo v. G onzales , 401 F.3d 453, 456 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“ The a lien bear s the burden of showing a ‘clear probability ’ of suc h perse cution.”). H oweve r, an asy lum officer

or I J may find the pre sumption i nsufficie nt if he or she finds, by a pre pondera

nce of the e vidence , that “[t] here has been a fundame ntal chang e in c ircumstance s such that the applica nt no longe r has a well-founde d fea r of perse cution” or “[t] he applicant could avoid future perse cution by reloc ating to another pa rt of the a

pplicant’s countr

y of nationality

. . . and u nder a ll the circ umstances, it would be r easona ble to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. §1208.13(b)( 1)(i). An a pp lic ant c an e sta

bli sha we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f p e rse cut ion in

the a bs e nc e of pa st perse cution if: 1) the applica nt fea rs per secution in his or her c ountry of nationality

based on one of t he aforeme ntioned fac tors; 2) t here is a reasonable possibili ty that the applica

nt would suffer

such perse cution; and 3) the a

pplicant is “unable or unwilling to return to, or a vail himself or her self of the protec tion of, that country beca use of suc h fea

r.” Id. at § 1208.13(b)( 2). An alien can also reque st w ithholding of re moval under 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Ac cording to that sub-section, the Attorne y Gene ral may not remove an alien to a country if he finds that “the alien’s life or fr eedom would be threatened in that co u n t ry beca use of the a lien’s ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or polit ical opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (A). I n withholding of removal procee dings, an alien re ceive s a pre sumption of future per secution if he

or she establishes past perse cution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(i). I f, howe ver, the applicant doe s not establish past perse cu t i o n , t he Attorne y Gene ral must only

withhold removal if the a pplicantK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

Th e I J h ig h li g h te d in c o n s is te n c ie s th a t ar e s ig n if ic an t ( s u c h a s w h e th e r K o c ib e ll i was 5 g rabbe d or beaten at the Oc tober 1999 de monstration and the manner in w hich she was re moved and threatened whe n working as an e lection monitor in October 2000) and that ar e minor (Koc ibelli’s inacc urate char acte rization of her separ ation as a divorce , Kocibelli’s confusing testimony as to the location of he r sister, and the time of nig ht Kocibelli’s brother took her to the hospital af ter Kola beat her)

. We only revie w t he mos t signific ant i nconsistencies, which are also the same inc onsistences on which the B I A re lied when a ffirming the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. 9 establishes “that it is more l i k el y t h an n o t that he or she would suffe r such ha rm.” Id. a t § 1208.16(b)( 1)(iii) (e mphasis added)

. I n his oral d ecision, t he I J conclude d that Kocibelli was not c redible be cause of numerous inconsistencies a

nd contra dictions in her testimony . ( See Pet’rs’ App. at 48-56.) He a lso noted that 5 witnesses who testified on K ocibelli’s beha l f m ad e statements that wer e inconsistent with her testimony , further

erodingKocibelli’s cr edibility . ( Id. at 56-68.) Th e B I A op ini on or g anize d the se iss ue s int o to fi ve dis c re te fa c tors th at “pa rt ic ula rl y pe rs ua de d” the B oa

rd to a ff ir m th e I J’s c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n: (1) a n inconsistency

betwee n the lead r espondent’s te stimony and her asylum application re g ardinghow she wa s treate d by police duringan Oc tob er 1999 demonstration, i.e., whether the police mere ly g rabbe d her arms or beat her ( I .J . at 12, 21 -2 2; compare Tr. at 76 with Gr ou p E xh. 2 , T a

b B (A sylum

Ap pli c a tio n St a te me nt) a t 2) ; ( 2) the omi ssi on

in h e r a sylum

a pp lic a tio n r e g ard inghe r a lle g e d d e te nti on s in 19 91 and 19 98 (I .J. at 21 ; see Group Ex h. 2, Tabs A and B) . The re spondent offe red an “Albanian version,” w hich alleg edly ref ere nced he r dete ntions. However , the interpre ter at the merits hear ing indicated that there was no ref ere nce to a

detention in this docume nt (I .J . at 21; Tr. at 139- 144; Ex h. 7); (3) a n inconsistency

betwee n her te sti mony and he r a sylum

a pp lic a tio n r e g ard ingwh e the r he r boy fr ie nd a tte mpt e d to ra pe he r d a ug hte r, the c o- re sp on de nt ( I .J. at 19 ; compare Tr. at 159-60 with Group Ex h. 2, Tab B at 1); (4) in contrast to her testimony at the mer its hearing , during her cre dible fea

r interview , the re spondent indicate d t hat af ter re ceivingthreatening p h o n e c a l l s , “ n o t h i n g h a

p p e n e d t o h e r ” r e l a t e d

t o h e r D e m o c r a t i c p art y

a c t i v i t y ( I

. J. at 17; Group Exh. 3, T ab D, at 8 ); and (5) an inconsistency betwee n her te stimony and her asylum application reg ardingwhether for ce w as used to pull her f rom theK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

The REAL I D Act of

2005 (Pub. L109-13, 119 Stat. 231) amende d 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) 6 to allow the trier of

fac t to make a c redibility deter mination “wi t h o u t reg ard to whe ther a n inconsistency , inacc urac y , or fa lsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a

pplicant’s cla im.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( iii ). Th is upd a te d stand ard , how e ve r, “ on ly a pp lie s to alie ns wh o ap pli e d f or a sylum , withholding of r emoval, or other relief on or afte r May 11, 2005, the ef

fec tive date of

this divi sion of the Ac t.” Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3 d 92 1, 92 5 n .4 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . K oc ibe lli fi le d h e r f ir st application for

asylum and withholding of r emoval on January 29, 2003. 10 vo tin g c e nte r in Oc tob e r 2 00 0 ( I .J. at 13 ; compare Tr. 82-83 with Group Exh. 2, Tab B at 3). (Pet’rs’ App. at 2.) When an I J decide s an applica nt’s testimony

“lac ks cre dibilit y , the I J must include in his or her de cision ‘spec ific re asons’ e x plaining why the I J rea ched suc h a conc lusion.” Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 402 ( 6th Cir. 2005). These reasons, in turn, must relate to “issues that g o to the hear t

o f t h e ap p licant’s cla im.” Sy lla , 3 8 8 F

. 3 d a t 9 2 6

. F u rth e r mo r e , “ [i ]f d is c r e p an c ie s ‘ c an n o t be 6 viewed a s attempts by

the applica

nt to enhance his claims of perse cution, they have no be aringon

cre dibilit y .’” Da ne

sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 5 F. 3 d

6 1 5 , 6 2 3 n . 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Sh ah v . I NS , 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 ( 9th Cir.2000)). I n this case, some of

the “inconsistenc ies and omissions” found by the I J wer e irre levant as they did not “g o to the hear

t of the applica

nt’s claim.” Sy lla , 3 8 8 F .3 d a t 92 6; s ee also Mecev. Gonzales , 4 15 F .3 d 56 2, 57 2 (6 th Cir

. 20 05 ) ([A ]lle g e d ‘i nc on sis te nc ie s a nd de fi c ie nc ie s’

. . . c ome nowher e close to supporting the conclusion t hat t he subst ance of t he claim of persecution is false.” ). For example, the BIA ac knowledg ed that it wa s “not convince d that inconsistencies re g ardingthe lead r espondent’s ma

rital status” supported the I J ’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination. (Pet’rs’ App. at 2.) Neverthe less, some of t he factors highlig hted i n the B I A’s opinion are simil ar to those that theK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

De s p i t e r ej ec t i n g some of the I J ’s justifications, t h e Six th Circuit ulti mately upheld the 7 BIA’s adve rse c redibility deter mination in Hamida . 478 F.3d at 740.

11 Six th Circuit has previously cited in support of a dverse cre dibilit y deter minations. See, e .g. , Kaba v. Muk asey , 5 46 F .3 d 7 41 , 7 49 -5 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) ; Bah , 4 62 F .3 d at 64 1; Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 395 (6th Cir. 2006); Yu , 3 64 F .3 d at 70 3- 04 ; see also Gjolaj v. Keisler , 2 52 F . App ’x 64 , 6 8 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Kocibelli claims that all of the a fore mentioned inconsistencie s an d omissions wer e either

m i n o r o r n o n -c o n t ra d i ct o ry . C i t i n g Hamida v. Gonzale s , 478 F.3d 734 ( 6th Cir. 2007), she ar g ues that the first and se cond fa ctors ar e re miniscent of pro b l em s t h is court has de scribed a s “not true inconsistencies or [] so i rre levant” that the court was “lef t with the i mpression that the I J rea ched f or any thing he could find.” Id. at 740. The I J in Hamida ba se d his a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ing , in p a rt , on “the f act that none of the a lleg ations conce rning [petit ioner’s] alleg ed imprisonment wer e listed in his application, despite the fa ct that the appl i ca t i o n as k ed for a deta iled descr iption of eac h instance of

mistreatment or thre at by others.” Id. a t 73 8. Ac c or din g to t he Sixth C ir c uit : the failure of an applicant to pr ovide an exhaustive list of details in hi s o ri ginal a syl u m a p p l i c a t i o nd o e s n o ta m o u n tt o ani n c o n s i s t e n c y w ar r an t i n g ana dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

fi nd ing , g ive n th a t “ the c ir c ums tanc e s su rr ound ingthe a

pp lic a t i o n p ro c e ss do not often lend themselve s to a perf ectly complete a

nd compre hensive recitation of an a pplicant’s cla im to asy lum or withholding.” Id. at 7 3 9 (q u o t i n g Liti v. Gonzales , 4 11 F .3 d 6 31 , 638 (6t h Ci r. 20 05 ))

. Othe r o pin ion s c on ta in 7 simil ar a naly ses. Se e Liti , 411 F.3d at 638 (“The absenc e of specific incidents in th e a pplication, ho we ve r, do e s n ot g ive ri se to the inf e re nc e that th e L iti s a

re inc re dib le , b ut r a the r r e inf or c e s th e ir claim of a long history

of political protest which c annot b e limit ed to a f ew spe cific inc idence s”);K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

When the g overnme nt’s attorney pointed this out at t he hearing , Kocibelli claimed that she 8 mentioned her

detentions to her attorney and wr ote them down in the Albania n-languag e ver sion of her state ment. (Pet’rs’ App. at 208.) A t her re quest, the I J allowed Koc ibelli to present the Albanian- lang uag e ver sion to the court and instructe d her to unde rline the portions relating he r detentions. When the translator r ead the se sec tions, however, the y only descr ibed mistreatment that Kocibelli suffe red dur ing pr otests. (Pet’rs’ A pp. at 141-44.) 12 Mec e , 415 F. 3d at 573 (“In the ca se at bar, it seems to us, the fa ilure to mention one beating among

many is o f l itt le c on se qu e nc e .” ); Vasha v. Gonzales , 410 F.3d 863 n.4 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n asy lum applicant is not required to provide an exhaustive, detailed list of all incidents of pe rsec ution in the asylum application.”). Ko c ibe lli did

no t me re ly

fa il to me nti on on e de te nti on a mon g many oth e rs or e xclu de c e rt a in details reg ardingher mistrea tment during her de tentions. Rather, in both of Kocibelli’s applications (a 2003 form submitt ed in Miami a nd a 2005 form submitt ed in D etroit), she answe red the question “Have y ou or y our family members e ver be en ac cused, c harg ed, ar res t ed , detained, inter

rog ated, convicted and sentenc ed or imprisoned in a ny country other than the United States” by marking the “No” box . She wrote nothing in the space below and did not mention her detentions in any of the state me nts sh e su

bmi tte d to the imm ig ratio n c ourt
. Cf. Kaba , 546 F.3d at 749-50 (distinguishing 8 Liti be c a us e “ an a pp lic a tio n s ho uld

c on ta in at le a st som e ind ic a tio n of the ty pe of a sse rt ion s th a t w ill be ma de in sup po rt

of a c la im” ); Bah , 462 F.3d at 641 (rely ing, in pa rt, on petitioner’s inconsistent te sti mony re g ard ingarres ts , to a ff ir m I J’s c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n) ; Be rri , 468 F.3d at 395-96 (re ly ing on inc onsistencies re g ardingthe number of times pe titioner was questioned, a rre sted, and wh e the r h e wa s b e a ten , to a ff ir m I J’s c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n) . T he re fo re , w e fi nd that th is inconsistency

supports the I J ’s adve rse c redibility finding

.K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

13 Ko c ibe lli a lso c ite s Hamida to challeng e spec ifically the B I A’s re liance on “ an inconsistency betwee n the lead r espondent’s te stimony and her asylum application reg arding how s he wa s treate d by police duringan Oc tober 1999 de monstration.” (Pet’r s’ App. at 2.) Kocibelli ar g ues that the contra diction betwee n her w ritten statement that police “beat me and other participa nts” and he r ora l statement that she wa s not be aten and “g ot only pushing” ref

lects a “ translation/semantic proble m

o r d i ffe renc e in per ception . . . re miniscent of the I mmigration Court’s approac h in Hamida .” (Pet’rs’ App. at 460, 212-213; B r. of Pet’rs at 24.) Yet bey ond stating that “tra nslation error s and semantic diff

icult i es ar e a ni n d el i b l e a s p ec to f t h es e p ro ce ed i n gs , ” K o ci b el l i p ro d u ce s n o ex p l an ati on of how such pr oblems led to the cha ng e in her story . (B r. of Pet’r s at 24 n. 4.) An i nconsistency in an applicant’s desc riptions of police trea tment presents a

rele vant and leg itimate conce rn. Prior opinions have r ever sed B I A holdings o n s i m i l ar inconsistencies not beca use they wer e irre levant or minor, but be cause the court found that the re cord did not support their ex istence. For

example, in Pergega v. Gonzales , 417 F. 3d 623 ( 6th Cir. 2005) the applica nt

re c og nize d th e e rr or

in h is a ff ida vit (a lle g e dly

c a us e d b y a tr ans la tio n p ro ble m) and

a le rt e d th e I J to the er ror be fo re t h e deportation hearing

. Id. at 629-30 (disre g ardinginconsistency as to whethe r applicant wa s beate n at police station or only questioned). Be cause the “c orre ction was a cce pted, and then ignore d by

the I J ” it could not support the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. Id. at 630; see also Me ce , 415 F. 3d at 572-73 (applica nt’s g ener al statement that he w as beaten and punc hed while beingarr ested for participating in a de monstration was not inconsistent with his oral testimony that he wa s beat en at th e po lic e statio n f oll ow ingthe de mon str a tio n) ; c f. Bah , 462 F.3d at 641K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

14 (upholding I J ’s adve rse credibil ity deter mination based, in part, on inconsistenc ies in applicant’s de sc ri pti on s o f h owso ldi e rs dis pe rs e d a de mon str a tio n) . H e re , th e I J ide nti fi e d tr ue inc on sis te nc ie s. The BIA’s third rea son for upholding the I J ’s finding also conc erns a n inconsistency

betwee n Kocibelli’s wr itten and ora l testimony . I n the first statement that Kocibelli included with her 2005 application, she wrote that her Socia list boy friend “ attempted to ra pe my daug hter.” (Pet’rs’ App. at 459 , 4 61). At the he aring , howeve r, Koc ibelli concede d that Kola’s a ctions only consisted of p e tt in g an d

to u c h in g h e r

d a u g h te r ’ s c h e s t i na

w ay th a t m a d e h e r

f e ar h e w a s “ g o in g to do something.” (

Id. at 226.) When as k ed why her a pplication descr ibed these a ctions as attempted rape , Kocibelli explained: “I had mentioned that he was doing that thing with his hands and that’ s the way Iunderstand it.” (

Id. at 227.) We ag ree with Kocibelli’s ar g ument that the eve nts describe d in her a sy lum application and verba l te stimony “ca

n be rea sonably

perc eived a s the beg innings of se x ual coe rcion in the e y es of a mother w itnessing he r pre- pubesce nt c hild being g roped by an older man.” ( Br . of Pet’rs at 28.) The B I A’s reliance on this discrepanc y – which could be the re sult of lang uag e and c ultural barr iers – is not convincing

. Hamida , 478 F.3d at 740 (reje cting I J ’s re liance on a discrepa ncy cause d by

the

a pp lic ant’ s c on fu sio n in

ide nti fy ingse xua l a ssa

ult ve rs us se xua l ha

ra ssm e nt) . F ur

the rm or e , th is inconsistency

does not “g o to the hear t” of Koc ib el l i ’s cl ai m s for a sy lum, which rely on the perse cution she suffe red be cause of her membership in the Albania n Democr atic par

ty
. The four th source of

support for the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination i s o n e of Kocibelli’s stateme nts at her c redible f ear i n t er v i ew . During the interview , the asylum officer qu e ri e d K oc ibe lli se ve ra l ti me s a bo ut h e r D e moc ratic pa

rt y a c tiv ity c a

us ing “ pr ob le ms. ” I n r e sp on seK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

Acc ording to the transcr ipt of the interview, a fter a lleg ing that she rec eived thre ats telling 9 her to “ leave and not to support the Democ ratic Par ty ,” the a sy lum officer

asked: Q: Whe n d id you

re c e ive y our c a lls ? A: I n 1 99 6, Ire c e ive d th e c a lls

. Q : D i d an yt h i n g h a

p p e nr e l a t e d

t o yo ur D e m o c r a t i c P art y a c t i v i t y? A: Nothing ha

ppen. Q: Did any

thing e lse happe n related to y our De mocratic Party in Albania afte r 1996? A: No, I came here for the sa fety

of my daug hter. (Pet’rs’ App. at 503.) 15 she alleg ed that she lost he r job a t a laboratory , that the police questioned her sever al time s , t h at police told her she should not support the Democra tic party , that the pol ice told her to “leave here

o r y o u w il l h a v e c o n s e qu e n c e s f o r th e r e s t o f y o u r li f

e , ” an d th a t s h e r e c e iv e d “ ma n y threa ts.” (P et ’r s ’ A p p . at 5 0 3

. ) Ye t fu rt h er i n qu i ry b y t h e a s y l u m o ff

i ce r l edKo ci b el l i t o s t at e t h at “n o t h i n g” else ha ppened a nd that she ca

me to Albania f

or the saf ety of her daug hter. 9 Kocibelli ar g ues that “[t] he sy ntax, grammar, conte x t, and timeframe of the inter viewer ’s question are ambig uous, even to a native Eng lish s p ea k er.” (B r. of Pet’r s at 29.) F urthermor e, Ko c ibe lli no te s th at sh e “ ha d ju st fi nishe d te lli ngthe int e rv ie we r, mul tip le tim e s, that sh e wa s ( i) threat en ed with her

life, (ii) de tained, and ( iii) that her daug hter, Ina, wa s molested” and that “[s] ever al questions later, Ms. Koc ibelli reveal ed s h e wa s also ‘pushed’ and ‘hur t’ and ‘f ear [ed] members of

the Socialist Party

of Albania .’” (

Id .) At the intervie w, howeve r, Koc ibelli did not discuss any

arr ests, beating s, or public confr ontations w ith police , despite mentioning that she had participated in “all [the Democr atic Party ’s] meetings a nd demonstrations.” (Pet’ rs’ App. at 501.)K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

16 Neve rtheless, t h e t ransc ript appea rs incomplete, with follow-up que stions indi cating Kocibelli’s stateme nts contained more information than the transcr iber re corde d. After explaining that she re cei v ed “m an y threats,” the asylum officer asks “[w]hen did y ou rec eive your c all s ?” (Pet’rs’ App. at 503 (e mphasis added) .) Koc ibelli’s expl anation of wh at occ urre d when she

c on fr on te d Ko la a

bo ut his tr e a tme nt of I na is e qu a lly dis joi nte d. Ac c or din g to the tran sc ri pt, Kocibelli said that Kola “ hit me and started attacking me.” ( Id. at 502.) L ater , in the first ref ere nce to m e e tin g Ko la

fo r c of fe e , Ko c ibe lli c la ims “ [h]e sa id he wo uld kil l me on

the da y Iha d c of fe e wi th him.” ( Id. at 503.) Ye t tow ar d t h e en d o f t h e intervie w, in the only other re fer ence to coffe e, the asylum officer asked “[d] id any thing else happen after being beate n in the cof fee shop? ” (

Id. at 504.) F ur the rm or e , thi s c ourt ha s e xpre sse d a re luc tanc e to re ly on c re dib le fe ar int e rv ie ws to up ho ld adver se cr edibility

finding s. See Toma v. Gonzales , 189 F. App’ x 492, 498 (Mar tin, J .) (unpublished dispositi on) (“ We are reluc tant to sustain an adver se cr edibility finding on the g rounds that an ap p l i ca n t ’s t es t i m o n y d

u ri n g a cr ed i b l e fe ar as s es s m en t wa s n o t as co mp l et e as at t h e f i n al h ea ri n g. Suc h a re qu ir e me nt, ‘n ot o nly ig no re s th e re a lity of the int e rv ie w p ro c e ss, bu t w ou ld, in e ff e c t, c re a te

an u np re ce d en t ed p re as y l u m ap p l i ca t i o n p ro ce s s . ’” (q u o t i n g Sin gh v . I NS , 292 F .3 d 101 7, 10 21 (9 th Ci r.2 00 2) )) ; c

f

. Yu , 364 F.3d at 703 n. 4 (discussing a rg uments for discr editing the reliability of in it ia l a ir p o rt in te r v ie w s )

. F o r th e s e r e a s o n s , w e h o ld th a t th e c r e d ib le f e ar in te r v ie w d o es not provide substantial support for the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. The fina l inconsistency

cited by the BIA involved Kocibelli’s contr adictory explanations of how she wa s removed f

rom the voting cente r in Octobe r 2000. In the persona l statement attac hed to her 2005 a sy lum application, Kocibelli explained:K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

17 I nS ep t em b er

2 0 0 0 wa s [ s i c] t h e c am p ai gn fo r t h e l o ca l el ec t i o n s an d Id i d ca mp ai gn for [sic] PD [ De mocratic Party ] and its candidate for the city ’s may or. On Elec tion Da y on Oc tob e r 1 , 2 00 0 I

saw a g ro up of s oci ali st vot e rs wh o h a d in the ir po c ke ts m an y false ba llots and Idemande d that the elec tion commissi on take a ll of the nece ssary measure s not to allow any one to put in the ballot box fra ud ballots. One of the men of the group pull ed me by forc e out of t he voti ng cente r, punched me and threatened me to c lose my mouth or he will disappear my children a

nd me. (Pet’rs’ App. at 460-61.) I n co n t ra s t , Kocibelli’s ora l testimony indicated that, a fter she repor ted voter fra ud, her mother’s neig hbor came to the polling place and told he r that her daug hter wa s sick. He c onvinced he r t o leave the polling plac e to g o to her mother’ s home (whe re he r daug hter wa s presumably

staying) . The man le d her to a car parke d outside of the polling station in a “f orest ar ea” wh e re “ the re we re tw o in div idu a ls the re wh o w e re sp e a kin g in the (i nd isc e rn ibl e ) d ia le c t dr e sse d in a suit and they

told me shut up and they pointed their g un on my

head.” ( Id. at 150, 154.) When asked a

bout this inconsistency , Kocibelli s aid t hat ot her inc idents also occur red that day , including “[t] wo or three times they just tell m e chill out. They g rabbing[si c] me by

my jacke t

and pu sh ing me do wn .” (P e t’ rs ’ A pp . at 14 9; see also id. at 215 (re ply ing to why she made a wr itten state me nt i nc on sis te nt w ithhe r s tor y on the sta

nd : “ I nc ide nt ha

pp e ne d to[o ], wh ile Iwa s g oin g to bathroom. B ut I was (indiscernible) sat down by forc e and g rabbing [si c] by the hands”).) S he later explained that she did not mention the fact that men pointed guns at her he ad in her written statement beca use, “I knew e very

thing that ha

ppened to me a

nd may be I felt I , there is nothing better , to hide

ever y thing t h at h as h ap pened . . . I never thought that I

had to write a ll that things [si c] beca use I alway s had, I , Ialway s knew that I was g oing to be on here fore ver.” ( Id. at 215.) Ev en ac ce pting a s true Koc ibelli’s expl anation that more than one incide nt occur red on O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e IJ w a s r e a s o n a b l e i n f i n d i n g h e r i n c o n s i s t e n t t e s t i m o n y e r o d e d h e r c r e d i b i l i t y.K oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

18 Fur thermore, h er wr i t t en testi mony that she wa s phy sically

forc ed out of the voting cente r and punched is still inconsistent with her oral stateme nt that – in addition to having a g un pointed at her he a d – sh e wa s g ra

bb e d b y he r j a c ke t and

pu sh e d d own. Ev e n in te rp re tin g Ko c ibe lli ’s te sti mony in the best possible light, ther e ar e contr adictions that support the I J ’s adve rse c redibility finding

. Th e re fo re , d e sp ite re

je c tin g so me of the re a so ns fo r the B I A’ s a ff ir ma tio n of the I J’s a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

deter mination, we must conclude that substantial evidence supports the I J ’s finding

. C. Hum anitarian Asylu m Relief Kocibe lli claims that the I J and B I A should have c onsidered he r re quest for huma nitarian

a sylum re lie f u nd e r 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8. 13 . A c c or din g to § 12 08 .1 3( b) (1 )( iii ): An applica

nt de scribed in pa

rag raph (b)( 1)(i) of this sec tion who is not barre d from a g rant of a sy lum under par ag raph ( c) of this section, may be g rante d asylum, in the exercise of

the dec ision-maker’ s discretion, if: (A ) T he a pp lic ant h a s d e m o n s t

r a t e d c omp e lli ngre a so ns fo r b e ingun wi lli ngor un a ble to return to the c ountry

arising out of the seve rity of the pa st persec ution; or (B ) The applicant has established that there is a rea sonable possibility that he or she may suffe r other se rious harm upon re moval to that country

. Kocibelli claims that she fac es “other s erious harm” i n Albania. The Just ice De partment ha s defined

“ o t h e r s e r i o u s h ar

m ” a s “ h a r m t h a t i s n o ti n f l i c t e d o na c c o u n to f

r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y,

m em b er s h ip in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion, but is so serious that it equals the

se ve ri ty of pe rs e c uti on .” 65 F e d. Re g . 7 61 21 -0 1 ( 20 00 ); se e als o Li ti , 411 F.3d at 641. Subsection 1208.13(b)( 1)(i) descr ibes an applicant who has established past perse cution but who does not re ceive asylum because a trier of fa ct deter

mine d t h at: (A) “ [t ]here has be en a fundame ntal ch ange in c ircumstance such that the a pplicant no long er ha s a we ll-founded f ear of perse cution in the appli ca n t ’s country of nationality ” or ( B) “[t] he applica nt could avoid futureK oci bel l i v. H ol der

Cas e N o. 08- 3580

See also Sam b i a v. Muk asey , 2009 WL 170670, at *8 n.5 (6th Cir. J an. 26, 2009) 10 (unpublished disposition) (“ An applicant who has only suffe red past perse cution may also qualify for a sy lum if he establishes that ‘the re is a r easona ble possibilit y

that [he] or she may

suffe r other serious har

m upon removal to that country .’” ( quoting 8 C.F .R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (iii)(B ))) ; Martini v. Muk asey , 3 14 F . App ’x 81 9, 82 6 ( 6th Cir . 200 8) (u

np ub lis he d disp os iti on ) ( re fu sin g a pp lic a nts ’ reque st for re mand for consideration of hum anitaria n asylum claim because they had “not presented c re dib le e vid e nc e of

pa st p e rs e c ut io n or a we ll- fo un de d f e ar o f p e rs e c uti on ” ); Matter of Chen , 20 I . & N . Dec . 16, 19 (B I A 1989) (a pply ing the regulation in this manner ).

19 perse cution by

reloc ating to another pa rt of the a

pplicant ’s country

of nationality .” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(B )(1) (i)(A )-( B)

. For this rea son, the S ix th Circuit has ex plained that the ot her serious harm provision – which only

applies to “[a]n applicant descr ibed i n para g raph ( b)(1) (i) of this sec tion” – “provide s a sec ond avenue of re lief for victims of past perse cution whose fe ar of future pe rsec ution

on acc ount of a prote cted g round has be en re butted by evidenc e of c hang ed countr y co n d i tions or of saf e har bors within his or her home c ountry .” Hamida , 4 7 8 F. 3 d at 7 4 1 (q u o t i n g Liti , 411 F.3d

a t 641- 42 ). Th e I J’s adve rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n und e rm ine s K oc ibe lli ’s e ff or t to sh owpa st 10 perse cution and re nders irr eleva nt her a rg uments irrespe ctive of a ny chang e in country

conditions or saf e har bors. See, e .g. , Gjolaj , 2 5 2 F. Ap p ’x at 6 7 (u np u b l i s h edd i s p o s i t i o n ) ( ci t i n g Sako v. Gonzales , 43 4 F .3 d 85 7, 86 2 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) ); see also Ceraj v. Muk asey , 511 F.3d 583, 594 ( holding petitioner who failed t o meet the standards for asy lum eligibility could not meet the hig her standa rds fo r wit hh ol di ng of r e mov a l) . F or thi s r e a so n, we ho ld t

hat th e I J and

B I A d id n ot e rr

in f a ili ngto consider K ocibelli’s humanitaria n asylum claim. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns , th e c ourt DE NI ES Kocibelli’s petition for r eview of the BIA’s fina l order de ny ing he r application for asylum and related re lief.