The Honor able Alge non L . Marbley , United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. File Na me: 06a0744n.06 Filed: Oc tober 5, 2006 File Na me: 06a0726n.06 Filed: Oc tober 5, 2006 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT GJ EL OSH P. VUSHAJ , FI L E VUSHAJ, and M E N D R I T V U S H A J, Pe tit ion e rs , v. AL BERTO R. GO NZAL ES, Attorney Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Re sp on de nt. ON APPEA L F RO M THE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

/ Be fore : MARTI

N and RYAN , Circuit J udg es; and MARB L EY, District Judge. * B OY CE F . M AR TI

N, JR., Ci rc uit

Judg e . G

je los h Vus haj , hi s w if

e F ile , a nd so n M e nd

ri t

are all citizens and natives of Alba nia. They

pet i t i o n t his Court for revie w of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’s a ffirma nce of the immigration c ourt’s decision denying their application for

a syl u m , w i t h h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l , an d

r e l i e f p u r s u an tt o t h e U n i t e d

N a t i o n s ’ s C o n v e n t i o nA g a ins t Torture . Additionally , the Vushajs appe al the Boa rd’s decision that their applications were f rivolousNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 2

Mr . V us ha

j’ s p a ssp or

t w a s a c tua lly

sta mpe d M arc h 1 , 199 7, ho we ve r he c la ims that th is d a te 1 is i nc or re c t and the c or re c t da te of e ntr y wa s Mar c h 10, 19 97

. I n sup po rt , Vus ha j poin ts out

that hi s passport shows that, like his wife, he enter ed Bulg aria on Marc h 9, 1997 and lef

t on March 10, 1997. and deny ing the ir motion to reopen the he aring . Ba sed on the discussion below, we de ny the petition for r eview a s to the Vushajs’ re movability and their motion to reope n. I. Gjelosh and F ile Vushaj pre viously enter ed the United States on J anuar y 31, 1994, visiti ng relat i v es fo r one month. Mr. Vushaj re turned to the United States on January 13, 1997, visiti ng relatives for twenty -five day s. Most rece ntly , Mr. and Mrs. Vushaj enter ed the United States a s nonimmigra nt visit ors for ple asure on Marc h 10, 1997. They wer e authoriz ed by the I mmigration and 1 Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) to stay

in the United S tates unt il September 9, 1997. Me ndrit entere d the United States without inspection on Marc h 13, 1997. On May 27 , 1 99 7, Vu sh a

j f ile d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum wi th t he I NS o n b e ha lf

of him se lf and his family . Subsequently , the Vushajs applied f or withholding o f re m oval under the United Nations Convention Agai n s t Torture . On J anuar y 20, 1998, the I

NS issued a Notice to Appe ar,

c ha rg ingtha t Mr . a nd Mr s. Vu sh a

j we re su bje c t to re mov a l f

ro m th e Un ite d St a te s h a vin g sta y e d in the United States longe r than per mitted in viol ation of sec tion 237(a)( 1)(B ) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (“I NA”)

. The I

NS also issued a Notice to Appea r, charg ing that Mendrit was subjec t to removal a s an alien pr esent in the United States without being pe rmitted or par oled in violation of se c tio n 2 12 (a )( 6) (A )( i) of the I NA

. Th e Vu sh a

js have c on c e de d that the y are su bje c t to re mov a l. On F e br ua ry 4, 20 04 , th e imm ig ra

tio n c ourt c on du c te d a

me ri ts h e ari ng on the Vu sh a js’ applications. M r. Vushaj wa s the first and pr imary witness for the f

amily ’s application and heNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 3 testified to the following fac ts, supplemented by the s tatement he submitt ed to the immigration court with his family ’s application. On F e br ua ry 26 , 1 98 4, Vu sh a

j and his fa mil y we re fo rc e fu lly dis pla c e d fr om t he ir ho me in Shkodra, Albania

to the Bushat Camp beca

use of their opposition to communism. During the ir five y ear s in is o lati o n , V u s h a j an d h is f

a mi ly w e r e to rtu

r e d b y c o mm

u n is ts

. I n 1 9 9 0 , V u s h a

j’ s two brothers, Ma

rtin and Gjeto Vusha

j, esca ped fr om internment

a n d e v e ntu a ll y

r e c e iv e d p o li ti cal a sy lum fr om t he Un ite d St a te s. Af

te r t he fa ll o f c omm

un ism , Vus ha

j join e d the e me rg ing de moc ra tic pa rt y in hopes of esta

blishing a de mocra cy

in Albania. In 1992, the Albanian pa rl i am ent ena cted law s allowing political prisoners under the communi st reg ime to obtain positi ons in the police for ce. O n November 17, 1992, Vushaj wa s appointed as a n office r of the Shkoder

Police Depa

rtment. On May 5, 19 94 , V us ha

j arr e ste d s oc ia lis t lea de rs , inc lud ingB ilb il M e ma and F a tos Na no fo r atte mpt ingto lead illeg al demonstrations. Mema w as later appointed dire ctor of the Al b anian police and Na no beca me the prime minister of A lbania. Vushaj testified that on Aug ust 15, 1994, he was arr ested by Ba skim Gazidede, leade r of the

secr et police, be cause he re fused to plac e we apons i n the bui lding that was the site of a hung er strike

. Vu sh a j c la ims that he wa s sev e re ly tor tur e d whi le in p ri so n. Ac c or din g to Vus ha j, h e re ma ine d in prison for ten day s and was rele ased after President Sali Ba risha ac knowledg ed that Vusha j’s actions

we re le g a l. A ft e r h is r e le a se , V us ha j cla im s th at the se c re t po lic e ma de it d if fi c ult fo r h im t o

c omp le te his du tie s a s a po lic e of

fi c e r. On

se ve ra l oc c a sio ns the se c re t poli c e wo uld re le a se prisoners whom Vusha

j arre sted. After

their re lease , the cr iminals sought to locate a nd kill Vushaj and his family

.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 4 I n e a rl y

19 97 , th e c omm

un ist s re g a ine d p ow e r i n A lba nia and or de re d a ll p ro -d e moc ratic polic e off icer s killed. Many

of Vushaj’ s friends we re killed by the communists. He testified that he re c e ive d a

no te un de r h is d oo r t

hr e a te nin g him

and the live s o f h is f

a mil y . T he c omm

un ist s burned dow n the police de partment a nd milit ary

division. Vushaj testified that one of the men who he had previously arr ested, Tolin Kola, tried to kidnap Mendrit twice. Vushaj additionally claimed that Nano issued an order out f or his a rre st. Howeve r, Mema, the direc tor of the police and who wa s former ly imprisoned by

Vushaj as b ei n g a socialist leader , stated that the orde r wa s fake and that the re wa s n e ve r o rd e r i ssu e d f or Vu sh a j’ s arr e st. Vu sh a

j c la ime d th a t th e do c ume nt i s a uth e nti c beca use it was consistent with eve nts that occur red in Alba

nia. Additionally , Vushaj alleg ed that two

me n w e re se nt b y

Na no to t he Un ite d St a te s to kil l hi m. Mr s. F ile Vu sh a

j te sti fi e d th a t sh e so ug ht a sylum in t he Un ite d Stat e s bec a

us e sh e wa s a fr a id for he r life due to her husband’ s p o s i t i o n as a poli ce of fice r in Albania. She c onfirmed that he r husband had in fa ct bee n arrested for ten day s in 1994. W hen aske d to describe her husba nd’s phy sical conditio n wh en released f rom jail, she desc ribed him as “e x hausted” , “upset” and “sa d”. She also claims to have be en present during t he two attempted kidnappings of Mendrit. She stated that “they tried to kidnap him at home and two w eeks later they tried to kidnap him outside when they tried to put him in t he ca

r.” A lthough she could no long er r emember exactly when the alleg ed kidnapping s took place, she said they occur red in F ebrua

ry of 1997. Mendrit also testified that ther e h ad b ee n t wo attempts to kidnap him. The first attempt involved a man try ing to kic k down his door

. Mendrit ca lled the police a nd they appre hended the man. The se cond attempt occ urre d two to three wee ks later. Me ndrit claims that sever al men cha sedNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 5 him wi th a c ar un til he ra

n in to h is c ou sin ’s sto re . M e nd ri t c ou ld n ot e xpla in w hy

he tho ug ht t

he se incidents wer e attempted kidna ppings a nd not attempted robbe ries or something else. Me nd ri t c la ims that hi s n a me is a c tually “Ma dr id” e ve n th ou g h a ll o ff ic ia l do c ume nts including h is dr iv e r ’ s li c e n s e s p e ll h is n a me a s “ M e n dr it

. ” H e c la im s th a t h is name wa s mis un de rs too d w he n h e c a me to th e Uni te d St a te s. Th e imm ig ratio n c ourt dis mis se d th is explanation because sever al documents such a s the application for asylum, which wer e filed by Mr. Vu sh a j, c on tin ue d to us e “ Me ndri t.” Th e imm ig ratio n c ourt a sk e d M e nd

ri t, “ [a]r e y ou

te lli ngme that y our fath e r

c an ’ t t e ll th e tr

u th a b o u t t h e mo s t m in o r

th in g , ” to w h ic h M e n dr it an s w ere d aff irmatively

. II. On F e br ua ry 18 , 2 00 4, the imm ig ratio n c ourt de nie d th e Vu sh a

js’ a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , withholding of r emoval, and re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture. T he immigr ation court cited seve ral inconsistenc ies betwe en testimony g iven, evidenc e submitted and the a ctual pre sent situation in Alba n i a. First, Vushaj could not provide a r eason a s to why he wa s sever ely

beate n during his ten-day

detainment in 1994. Fur ther, whe n Mrs. Vushaj testi fi ed about the phy sical

c on dit ion o f her hu sban d a ft e r t he te n d ay s in

pr iso n, sh e , d e sp ite e ve ry op po rt un ity , f a ile d to

me nti on any ph y sic a l in

jur ie s v isi ble on him . O n th e ir a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , V us ha

j sp e lle d h is son’s name a s “Mendr it”, y et his son testified that his name is i n fa ct s p ell ed “Ma drid.” Additionally , Vushaj wrote Marc h 1, 1997 as the date of his ar rival in the United States on the

a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , w hic h is c on sis te nt wit h the sta mp on his pa ssp or

t. Y e t, b oth

Mr . a nd Mr s. Vushaj testified that date was inc orre ct and the a ctual date was Mar ch 10, 1997.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 6 Vu sh a

j pr e se nte d a

n a rr e st o rd e r a lle g e dly

iss ue d b y Na no (t he so c ia lis t lea de r w ho be c a me the pr ime min ist e r o f A lba nia ), that w a s late r v e ri fi e d to be fr a ud ule nt b y the Al ba nia n g ov e rn me nt. The immigr ation court thoug ht it suspi cious that Vushaj’s f ather is who alerte d Vushaj as t o the prese nce of

the orde r, y et when the fathe r testified he never was asked one question pertainingto the

or de r. Vu sh a

j kn e w that th e or de r w a s v e ri fi e d f a lse a s e arl y

a s Apr il of

20 00 and fa ile d to ob ta in further evidenc e supporting the acc urac y of the order by the time te stimony was take n in Febr

uary of 2004. Additionally , Vushaj wa s asked if he had been c onvicted of a crime since his stay

in the United States to which he sa id that he had not. Ye t , t h e go vernme nt produce d evidenc e de mon str a tin g tha

t V us ha j pl e d guil ty

to “ re sis ti ng and

ob str uc tin g a po lic e of fi c e r a nd do me sti c violence a

nd battery on his wife.” T he immigr ation court found tha t the testimony

g iven re g arding the alleg ed kidnappingattempts was spec ulative eve n if all testimony is believed. Finally , the immigration c ourt found the Vushajs’ de scription of Albania to be inconsistent wi th t he e vid e nc e su

bmi tte d b y the g ov e rnme nt. Th e imm ig ratio n c ourt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t w hil e there had been an “implosion of ana rchy” in 1997, pre sent day Albania is much more balanc ed; that major shifts in th e p o litical structure of the Albanian g overnme nt has made the country stable. Fur ther, Vusha

j did not present enoug h evidenc e demonstrating that what he fe are d wa s i n fac t political persec ution rather tha n “par t of the vicissitudes of beinga police of fice r.” The immigration c ourt felt that beca use of a ll of the “re d flag s”in Vushaj’s story and appa rent

ease to which he would c hang e his story , Vushaj wa s not credible a nd there fo re the immigration court de nied the applications for asylum and withholding of r emoval. F urther, the immigration court found the a

pplication for a sy lum to be frivolous pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208. 2 0 b ec au s e of twoNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 7 frau d ulent documents pre sented by Vushaj. The f

irst was the a lleg ed ar

rest orde r. The othe r wa s Me nd ri t’ s b ir th c e rt if ic a te , w hic h h a d th e name a s “ Me nd ri t.” B e c a

us e Me nd ri t te sti fi e d th a t hi s

name wa s actua lly

spelled “Ma drid,” th e i m migr ation court found the birth cer tificate to be fra udulent. I ndeed, Me ndrit testified that his father was not alwa

y s truthful. I n conclusion, t he immigration court order ed the Vusha js’ remova l from the United States to Albania

. The Vu s h aj s fi l ed a timely appea l with the Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals (“ Boa rd”) . On J anuar y 14, 2005, the B oard a dopted and af firmed the immig ration cour t’s decision, including the deter mination that Vushaj was not c redible and that the application for a sy lum was frivolous. On F e br ua ry 8, the Vu sh a

js p e tit ion e d thi s Court to r e vie w the B oa rd de c isi on (N o. 05 -3 15 6) . O n Apr il 7, the Vushajs filed a

motion to reope n their case with the Board because of “ne wly discovere d and previously

u n av ai l ab l e e v i d en ce m at er i al t o t h e Imm i gra t i o nC o u rt ’s adver se cr edibility and frivolous fi nd ing s. ” Th e ne w e vid e nc e c on sis te d pr ima ri ly of state me nts fr om M ark

Luk e Ma ja l and Ag os tin Sterkaj, both Albanian police inspectors in 1997, conf irming that there w as an a

rre st order f

or Vushaj issued on Aug ust 15, 1997. On J une 21, 2005, the Boar d denied the motion to reope n beca use the newly offe red e vidence could have been of fer ed ea rlier. F urther, a ccor ding to the Boa rd, the ne w

e vid e nc e did no t re bu t the oth e r dis c re pa nc ie s in the Vu sh a

js’ c la ims . O n July

14 , 2 00 5, the Vu sh a

js petitioned this Court t o revie w the B oard’ s decision deny ing the motion to reopen (No. 05- 3906). This Court consolidated both petitions for revie w. III

. A. The V ushajs’ Applications for Asylum and Related ReliefNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 8 Th is Cou rt ’s re vie w o f a dmi nis tr a tiv e a sylum and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l e lig ibi lity deter minations is limit ed to a def ere ntial standard. In revie wing decisions of the B oard de ny ing a n application fo r asy lum, the determination is upheld if supported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative e vidence on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole. Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 388 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i n g INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 5 02 U. S. 4 78 , 4 81 (1 99 2) ). We w ill re ve rs e on ly if the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y the Vu sh a

js w a s su c h th at a rea so na ble fa c tf ind e r w ou ld n ot f

a il i n concludingthat the re quisite fear of per secution existed. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84 (c iting NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. , 306 U.S. 292, 300 (1939)). Th e Attor ne y Ge ne ra l ma

y g ra nt a sylum to any pe rs on wh o qu a lif ie s a s a “ re fu g e e .” 8 U .S. C. § 1158(b). A ref

ug ee is a person unable or unwilling to re turn to his country “bec ause of

perse cution

or a w ell-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution on account of rac e, re ligion, nationalit y , m em b er s hip in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a )(42) (A). T o prove one ’s re fug ee status, one must present spec ific fac ts de monstrating suffe ring of past perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of future persecution mot ivated by one of these five statutorily protec ted g rounds. Se e El ias

Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 481. The a pplicant’s testimony , if cre dible, “may be sufficie nt to sustain the burden of proof without cor

roboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)

. To prove a well-founde d fea

r of futur e pe rs e c uti on , a

n a pp lic ant mus t a c tua lly

fe ar t hat th e y wi ll b e pe rs e c ute d u

po n r e tur n to the ir country , and they

must present evide nce e stablishing an “ objective situation” unde r which his fe ar can be deeme d rea sonable. INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 440-41 (1987). I n this case, the B oard a

nd the immigration court wer e in ag ree ment that the fatal flaw in the Vu sh a js’ a pp lic a tio ns wa s th e c re di bility of Mr . V us ha

j’ s te sti mony . T he re fo re , it is that a dv e rs eNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 9

c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n we re vie w. “ [C]re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns are c on sid e re d fin din g s of f a c t, and ar e re viewed unde r the substantial evide nce sta ndard.” Sy lla v . I

NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925 (6th Cir. 2004). B ased o n t h at standard, this Court must treat finding s of fa ct as “ conclusive unle ss any

rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)( B) ). I n c omi ngto t

his a dv ers e c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n, the imm ig ratio n c ourt pr ov ide s, in i ts tw e nty -s ix pa g e or a l de c isi on , a la un dr y lis t of re a so ns wh y the c ourt did no t be lie ve Mr . V us ha

j to be c re dib le

. Vu sh a

j fa ile d to me nti on the be a tin g and tor tur e duri nghis imp ri so nme nt i n 1 99 4 in his written applications. Despite alleg edly being beate n to a pulp a

nd almost de ad, Vushaj’s wife failed to r eca ll any

phy sical injuries to Mr. Vushaj a fter his imprisonment. Vushaj also fa iled to include t h e t w o a l l e g e d

a t t e mp t e d

k i dn a p p i n g s o f h i s s o no nan y o f

h i s w r i t t e na

p p l i c a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y, Vushaj lied duringhis te s timony when he said that he ha d never been c onvicted of a

crime in the United States. I n fac t, Vushaj had pled g uilty to obstruc ting a police office r and domestic violence and batte r

y to h is w if

e . T h is g u il ty

p le a w a s a ls o n o t i n c lu d e d

o nan y o f V u s h a j’ s written applications. In sum, the immi g ration cour t found Vushaj’s testimony to be “va g ue,” “ ambig uous,” “nonsensica l,” and most importantly not cre dible. The immigr ation court a lso found the Vushajs’ a pplications suspect bec ause of two documents which the court found t o be forg erie s. One wa s the birth cer tificate of Mendrit, which is spelled Mendrit on the birth ce rtificate whi le the y oung man testified to beingnamed Ma drid. Although the immigration court fee ls this document is of gr ea t i mport to the cre dibilit y of theNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 10 Vushajs, it seems to this Court t o be a hig hly ir re levant inconsistency

. Se e Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926 (holding that adver se cr edibility finding s cannot be based on “ an irre levant inconsistency”). The sec ond document that the immigr ation court fo u n d to be fra udulent was the or der f

or Vu sh a j’ s d e te nti on

a nd mur de r i ssu e d o n A ugus t 15 , 1 997. Th e State De pa rtme nt f ound thi s document to be a

forg ery upon contac ting the D irec tor of the Police f or Shkodra, B ilbil M ema. Vushaj ar g ues that Mema has suspect cre dibilit y in refutingthe document be cause Mema ha s been

acc used of c ollaborating with human and drug traffic kers and beca use Mema was the one who issued the orde r ag ainst Vushaj. Neither of these a ccusations were c redible to the immigration court and we have no basis to question this determination. The a ccusations against Mema sound more like rumor, comingfrom two interne t news age ncies. Additionally , Mema’s name and signatur e appe ar nowher e on the or der despite the fa ct that his titl e as D irec tor of Police appe ars on the doc ument as the per son authoring the orde r. Considering these incons istencies fr om Vushaj’s testimony , his applications, and other docu me n ts p r e s e n te d to th e im mi g r a ti o n c o u rt, th e r e w a s s u b s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e to s u

p p ort the immigration court’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. This evidenc e certainly does not rise to the sta nd ard that “ any re a so na ble a dju dic a tor

wo uld be c omp e lle d to c on c lud e to the c on tr ary” of thi s adver se cr edibility

finding

. Yu , 364 F.3d at 702. B. The Fr ivolousness of the Vushajs’ A pplications Th e imm ig ratio n c ourt

de c ide d th a t th e Vu sh a

js’ a pp lic a tio ns we re fr ivo lou s ba se d o n th e ir submissi on of two docume nts which they knew to be fr audulent: the birth ce rtificate and the or der for de tention. This finding wa s aff i rm ed b y t he B oard. U nder 8 C.F .R. § 1208.20, “a findingofNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 11

De sp ite thi s f

a vo ra ble ru lin g on

Vu sh a j’ s f ri vo lou sn e ss a

pp e a l, i t ha s n o b eari ng on thi s 2 Court’s final re sult. I f an a lien is determined to have submitt ed a f rivolous application, then they are no longe r eligible for any benef its of asy lum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)( 6). Be cause of t he immigr ation court’s a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination (and our a ffirma nce of that decision), the Vushajs ar e not e lig ibl e fo r a sylum

e ve n w iththe ir

a pp lic a tio n b e inghe ld t o b e no t f ri vo lou s. frivolousness does not a

utomatically flow from an adver se cr edibility deter mination.” Muhanna v. Gonzales , 3 99 F .3 d 5 82 , 5 89 (3 rd Cir . 2 00 5) . Rathe r, the imm ig ra tio n c ourt mus t specific ally find [] that the alien knowing ly filed a frivolous asylum application. For p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s e c t i o n , an a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n i s f

r i v o l o u s i f any

of its material eleme nts is deliberately fabricated . Such a finding shall only b e m ade if the immigration judge or t h e Bo ar d is satisfied that the applica nt, during the cour se of the pr o cee dings, ha s had suffic ient opportunity to acc ount for any

discrepa ncies or imp la us ibl e a sp e c ts o f t

he c la im. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (empha sis a dded). I n this c ase, the birth cer tificate discr epanc y

is not a “mater ial element” and, ther efor e, should not have be en conside red a s a re ason for the ap p l i ca tions to be deter mined to be frivolous. Addition all y , the discussion from the immigr ation court ne ver

a de qu a te ly

e xpla ins ho w the su

bmi ssi on of the de te nti on

or de r w a s a

de liberate a c t by

Vu sh a j to mislead the immigration court. By Vushaj’s own a dmission, he rec eived the document via his father, who had r ece ived it from a f amily friend in Alba

nia. Considering this chain of possession that the do c ume nt t oo k, a lon g wi th i ts l oo k o f v e ra c ity , th e imm ig ratio n c ou rt app ears to h a ve e rr e d to

a ssume that V us ha

j pr e se nte d th is d oc ume nt t o in te nti on a lly de fr a ud the imm ig ratio n c ourt

. There fore , we rever se the immigr ation court’s de termination that the Vushajs’ a pplications

we re fr ivo lou s. 2 C. T he Vu sh a

js’ Mo tio n to Re op e n th e ir Ca seNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 12 Finally , the Vushajs appe al the B oard’ s decision deny ing the ir motion to reopen the proce eding s. “The de cision to g rant or deny a mot ion to reope n . . . is within t he discre tion of the Boa rd.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) . We reviewthe B oard' s denial of a motion to reopen for

an abuse of discretion. Haddad v. Gonzale s , 437 F.3d 515, 517 (6th Cir. 2006). I n order for a Boa rd to consider a mot ion to reope n the proc eeding s, it must be ac companied by evidenc e which is “ materia l and was not available a

nd co u l d n ot have be en discove red or prese nted at the f

ormer he aring .” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). I n their motion to reopen the c ase, the Vushajs pre sented t h e Bo ar d with two handwritten letters fr om two former

Albanian police office rs who wr ote to conf i rm t h at t h e contents of the detention orde r we re true . Whil e these documents ar e cle arly materia l to the previous holdings of the imm ig ratio n c ourt and the B oa rd , Mr. Vu sh a

j nev e r expl a ine d to the B oa rd wh y the se state me nts

we re pr e vio us ly

un a v a i l a ble , e sp e c ia lly

in l ig ht o f t

he fo ur -y e ar d e lay

be tw e e n V us ha

j’ s in iti a l me ri ts he ari ngin 2 00 0 a

nd the fi na l one c on du c te d in 20 04 . V us ha

j’ s b ri e f p ro vid e s n o guid anc e , o nly to say the evidenc e wa s “pre viously unavailable .” This is insufficient to demonst rate an abuse of discretion by

the B oard. There fore , we a ffirm the de cision of the B oard de ny ing Vushaj’s m otion to reopen his ca se. I V. B a se d o n th e a

bo ve dis c us sio n, we DEN Y t he Vu sh a js’ pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w a s to the ir

remova bility and their moti on to reope n, but REVERSE t he B oard’ s decision that their a pplication

wa s f ri vo lou s.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 13 RY AN , Ci rc uit

Judg e , c on c ur

ri ngin p art

and dis se nti ngin p art

. O u r “ s u b s t a n t i a l evidenc e” standard of revie w does not permit us to dist urb the I J ’s finding that the petitioners’ la ck of c re dib ili ty

pr e c lud e s th e ir

re qu e st fo r as y lum and re la te d re lie f. B ut, in my vie w, ne ith e r d oe s it permit us to disturb the I J ’s conc lusion that Gjelosh Vusha j’s application wa s frivolous. Iwould not have ma de that finding had I been the authorized fac t finder, but I was not, and I

cannot sa y , g iven the re cord be fore us, that the I J ’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence

. That said, I

concur in the court’s judg ment denying the petition for re view.