2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-16-2008 

# Ele zi v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2786

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Elez i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1021. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1021NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 2786

___________ IN D R IT E L E Z I, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n ts

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on ForR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 97- 396- 841 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 12, 2008 B efor e: FU E N T E S, A L D I SE R T and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: J une 16, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerI ndr i tE l ezi , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of A l bani a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w ith o u t in s p e c tio n o n J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 a t L a re d o , T e x a s . H e w a s 1 7 y e a rs o ld a t th e tim e . O n Jun e 28 , 20 03 , he w as served w i th a N oti ce T o A pp ear for r em ov al proceed i ng s,2

all eg ing that h e w as re m o v ab le un d er Im m igrati o n & N ati o n ali tyA ct (“IN A ”) § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , 8 U . S. C . § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , as an al i en w ho w as pr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed. T hes e al l egat i ons w er e admi t t ed thr ough couns el ata pr el i m i naryhear i ng. R emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e tr ans ferr ed fr om San A nt oni o, T exas t o N ew ark, N ew J er s ey . O n J anuary20, 2004, E l ezi fi l ed hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um underI N A § 208( a) , 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) , and w i thhol di ng of r emoval under IN A § 2 4 1 (b )( 3 ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 ), a n d th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ), 8 C . F. R . §§ 1208. 16( c) , 1208. 18, cl ai m i ng a fe arof per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on due t o hi s s uppor tof the D emocr at i c Partyof A l bani a. E l ezi ’ s I - 589 For m w as forw ar ded t o the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e forr evi ew and comm ent , and the St at e D epart m entr es ponded byr efe rr i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge t o the C ountryR eporton H u m a n R ig h ts P ra c tic e s f o r A lb a n ia f

o r 2 0 0 4 . I n s uppor tof El ezi ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on, E l ezi ’ s father , N azi f, s ubm i t t ed a sta tem e n t, da ted N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , in w h ich h e d e taile d th e su f f e rin g o f h is f a m ily underthe ol d C om m uni s tPar ty . H i s ow n father( E l ezi ’ s gr andfa ther ) w as arr es t ed and i m pr i s oned i n 1947. A ft erhi s r el eas e, hi s pr opertyw as confi s cat ed, he w as l abel ed an “ene m yof the s t at e, ” he c oul d onl ygetm eni al j obs and hi s chi l dr en w er e deni ed an e d u c a tio n . N a z if

sta rte d h is o w n f

a m ilyin 1 9 7 3 . H e w a s a c tiv e in th e D e m o c ra tic P a rty a n d “ se c u rityp e o p le” f

o llo w e d h im e v e ryw h e re . O n A u g u st 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 , w h ile try in g to e s c a p e f ro m th e m , h e c ra s h e d in to a tr a in a n d lo s t h is le g .3

In M a rc h 1 9 9 2 , the D e m o c ra tic P a rtyf in a llyc a m e to p o w e r. U n f o rtu n a tely , in 1997, the new Soci al i s tPar tyt oppl ed the D emocr at i c Partyr egi m e. N azi f’ s bus i nes s w as t axed he avi l y , and eve ntual l ydes tr oy ed bythe Soci al i s t s . H e w as outof w or k, and under s ur vei l l ance bythe s ecur i typol i ce onc e aga i n. O n February20, 2000, he w as pl ace d underhous e arr es tfor11 m onths beca us e of hi s m ember s hi p i n the D emocr at i c Partyand T he A s s oci at i on of For m er l yPol i t i cal l yPer s ecut ed of Ti r ana. N a z i f ’ s s t a t e m e n t( a s tr a n s l a t e d ) e n d s th i s w a y: T h e las t se v e n y e a rs h a v e b e e n a re a l n ig h tm a r e f o r m yf a m ily and me. I can s aythe s ame t hi ng form ys o n Indr i t , w ho w as th re a te n e d th a t h e w a s g o in g to b e k id n a p p e d m a n ytim e s in e x c h a n g e o f m o n e y o r in a d e a l f o r th e p o lit icia n s in p o w e r. H is l i fe w as al w ay s i n d an g er. H e w as neverfr ee t o do w hathe neede d t o do, t o pl ay , oreve n to s tudynor m al l yl i ke other c h ild re n . F in d in g m y se lf in su c h situ a tio n , fa c in g re a l th re a ts form ys on, m yonl yhei r , I w as for ced t o al l ow m y s on t o l eave h is h o u se a n d h is h o m e lan d in o rd e r to sa v e h is life a n d a lso to gi ve hi m a cha nce i n l i fe s o he coul d benef i tfr om the A m er i can f r e e d o m a n d d e m o c r a c y. A . R . 366- 67. E lez i tes tifie d a t h is re m o v a l h e a rin g th a t h e w a s a m e m b e r o f th e D e m o c ra tic Par tyY out h Forum . H e part i ci pat ed i n demonstr at i ons , and di s tr i but ed l i t er atur e and hung pos t er s forhi s fatherdur i ng the l ocal el ect i ons of O ct ober2000. I n J anuary2003, he w as s t opped bytw o pol i ce of fi cer s w ho as ked hi m i f he w as N azi f’ s s on, and, w hen he rep li ed that h e w as, th eytold h im to tell h is fathe r t o k ee p h is m o u th sh u t and b e v ery car eful . I n February2003, tw o Soci al i s tPar tym ember s acc os t ed El ezi on the s tr eet , beat4

hi m and ki cked hi m , and s ai d t heyw ant ed the D emocr at s dead. A l though he w as bl eedi ng and s uffe r ed i nj ur i es t o hi s l egs , ki dney s , and fa ce, he di d nots eek medi cal tr eatm ent . W i thi n day s of thi s event , hi s fatherdeci ded thathi s l i fe w as i n dangerand thathe s houl d l eave A l bani a. T he I J as ked El ezi w hyhi s fatherdi d notm ent i on the February2003 as s aul ti n hi s s t at ement , and El ezi r epl i ed that , as faras he knew , hi s father had ment i oned i t , and s t at ed: “M aybe y ou don’ thave hi s l ett eroverther e. W hatcan I s ay ?” A . R . 119. T he I J deni ed r el i ef. H e found thatthe J anuary2003 thr eatdi d notr i s e t o the l evel o f p erse cu ti o n , b ec au se itw as d ir ec ted a t E lezi’s fath er a n d n o t ath im p erso n all y . T h e IJ al s o found thatE l ezi di d nott es t i fycr edi bl yaboutthe February2003 beat i ng. H e di d not h a v e sc a rs o r m a rk s o n h is f a c e , an d h is f

a th e r f a iled to m e n tio n a n ysp e c if ic b e a tin g in hi s s t at ement . H i s fathert al ked onl yof ki dnappi ng thr eat s , and El ezi fai l ed t o m ent i on anyki dnappi ng thr eat s . T hes e i ncons i s t enci es w entt o the hea r tof El ezi ’ s cl ai m of persecut i on . T he IJ further con cl ud ed that , becau se hi s father had been safe for the p ast tw o y e a rs, a n d is s til l p o lit ica llya c tiv e , E lez i h a d little to f e a r o n a c c o u n t o f

th is r el at i ons hi p s houl d he be r eturned t o A l bani a. T hus , he coul d nots how a w el l - founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on. E l ezi ’ s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval w as deni ed, as was h i s a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. O n A ugus t2, 2005, the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) . O n M ay17, 2007, the B oar d r ei s s ued i t s deci s i on1 U n d e r th e R E A L ID A c t o f 2 0 0 5 , cre d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s m a yb e m a d e “ w ith o u t 1 2 r egar d t o w hetheran i ncons i s t ency , i nacc ur acy , orfal s ehood goes t o the hea r tof the 5 s u a s p o n te , b e c a u s e o f

a p ro b le m w ith re s p e c t to th e m a ilin g o f th e o ri g in a l d e c is io n . E l ezi fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew on J une 15, 2007. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . Wh e n th e Bo a r d s u mm a r i l ya f f i r ms , th e d e c i s i o n we r evi ew i s thati s s ued bythe I J . D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en b a n c ). F a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s a re u p h e ld if th e ya re su p p o rte d b yre a so n a b le, s u b sta n tial, and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . W e maynotdi s turb the agenc y ’ s deci s i on m er el ybeca us e w e w oul d have de ci ded the ca s e di ffe r ent l y . See G a b u n iya v . U .S . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 4 6 3 F .3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W h e th e r a n a p p lica n t f

o r a sy lu m h a s d e m o n stra ted p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on i s a fa ctual ques t i on w hi ch i s r evi ew ed underthe s ubs t ant i al evidence st and ard. S ee G ao v . A shcroft , 29 9 F . 3d 26 6, 27 2 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). W e al so r evi ew an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . U nderthi s defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , w e mustuphol d the cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat or w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tra ry .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ). W e u p h o ld adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons bas ed on omi s s i ons and di s cr epanc i es thatgo t o the h ea rto f a p eti ti o n er’s claim . C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 13 a p p lic a n t's c la im .” P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -1 3 , § 1 0 1 (a )( 3 )( B )( iii) , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 0 3 (2 0 0 5 ). 4 H o w e v e r, th is p ro v isio n o f th e R E A L ID A c t ap p lies o n lyto c a se s w h e re th e a p p lica n t 5 a p p lied f

o r a sy lu m o r o th e r re lief a f ter M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 . S e e id . § 1 0 1 (h )(2 ), 1 1 9 S tat. a t 6 3 0 5 . B e c a u s e E le z i a p p lie d f o r a s y lu m in 2 0 0 4 , o u r p re -R E A L ID A c t s ta n d a rd a p p lie s .

6 A n appl i cantforas y l um has the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thathe i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o hi s hom e country“bec aus e of [ pas t ] per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n [ .]” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A ); s e e 8 C .F .R . § 1208. 13( a) ; A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 482 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he al i en bea r s the bur den of pr oof. I d. T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyon the bas i s of pas tper s ecut i on, an al i en m us ts how thathe s uffe r ed s om e harm r i s i ng t o the l evel of per s ecut i on on acc ountof a s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound, and thati tw as comm i t t ed bythe governm entorfor ces the governm enti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . G ao, 299 F. 3d at272. A n al i en w ho estab li sh es p ast p erse cu ti o n en joy s a p resu m p ti o n o f a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, L ukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , but , i f the al i en ca n n o t sho w p ast p erse cu ti o n , h e m aysti ll estab li sh a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rse c u tio n b yd e m o n stra tin g a su b jec tiv e f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n , an d th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n in th e a lien ’s c irc u m sta n c e s w o u ld f e a r p e rse c u tio n if

re tu rn e d to th e c o u n tryin q u esti o n , Z u b ed a v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe J anuary2003 i nci dentdoes notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. See C havarr i a v. G onzal es , 446 F. 3d 508, 518 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[W ] e have r efus ed t o ext end as y l um7

pr ot ect i on forthr eat s that , w hi l e s i ni s t erand cr edi bl e i n natur e, w er e nothi ghl yi m m i nent orconcr et e orfai l ed t o r es ul ti n anyphy s i cal vi ol ence orharm t o the al i en. ”) . Subst ant i al evi dence al s o s uppor t s the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w i th r es pectt o the February2003 as s aul t . C ontr aryt o E l ezi ’ s cont ent i on on appea l , i ti s i ndeed s i gni fi cant th a t h is f a th e r, w h o w e n t to th e tro u b le o f g iv in g a d e taile d sta tem e n t in su p p o rt o f h is s on’ s cl ai m , om i tt ed anyr efe r ence t o thi s i nci dent . H e gave nons peci fi c det ai l s of ki dnappi ng thr eat s and nothi ng m or e. T he as s aul tw oul d have be en a dr amat i c eve ntfor the f am il y , an d itw as a ll eg ed to h av e b ee n the p ivo tal ev en t th at pre cipitat ed E lezi’s departur e fr om A l bani a. W hen the I J as ked El ezi w hyhi s fatherdi d notm ent i on the F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 3 a s s a u lt in h is s ta te m e n t, E le z i’ s e x p la n a tio n w a s in s u f f ic ie n t. T her e i s , as E l ezi cont ends , ampl e cr edi bl e evi dence of a fa m ily hi s t oryof per s ecut i on on acc ountof ac t i vi tyon behal f of the D emocr at i c Party , butthatevi dence does noter as e the tr oubl es om e i ncons i s t encybetw een El ezi ’ s r emoval hear i ng t es t i m ony a n d h is d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 a ss a u lt, th e p iv o tal e v e n t in E lez i’s in d iv id u a l h isto ryo f p e rse c u tio n . E lez i co n ten d s in h is b rie f th a t h is c a se is sim il ar to tha t of

the a li en in M att er o f O -Z - & I-Z -, 2 2 I. & N . D ec . 2 3 (B IA 1 9 9 8 ), i nv olvi ng the p hy si cal abu se of a father and son , bu tthat cas e do es not i nv olve an ad verse credi bil i tyfi nd i ng , and thu s does no tsupp orthis cl ai m for r el i ef. E l ezi ’s strongest ar gum enti s thathi s father ’ s narr at i ve s t at ementw as aut obi ogr aphi cal i n natur e, and an overvi ew of the fa m i l y ’ s hi s t ory , and w as noti nt ended t o be a c om pr ehens i ve l i s t i ng of1 E ven assum i ng arguen do that the incon si st encies no t ed b ythe IJ betw een E l ezi ’s 2 2 t es t i m onyand hi s father ’ s s t at ementar e mi norand notm at er i al , s ee G abuni y a, 463 F. 3d 3 at322, w e doubti n anyeventthatthes e tw o i nci dent s , a s i ngl e bea t i ng r es ul t i ng i n 4 in ju rie s th a t w e re tre a ted a t h o m e b yth e f a m ilya n d a n o n im m in e n t th re a t th a t d id n o t 5 r es ul ti n anyphy s i cal i nj ury , w oul d compel r ever s al of the age ncydeci s i on thatE l ezi di d 6 n o t s u f

f e r p e rs e c u tio n . S e e V o c i v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 9 F .3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 8 e v e ry th in g th a t h a p p e n e d to E lez i h im se lf. B u t th is c o n ten tio n , w h ile it w o u ld e x p lain w h yE lez i’s f

a th e r o m itt e d a n yre f

e re n c e to th e F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 a ss a u lt, d o e s n o t ex p lain w hyE l ezi om i t t ed anyr efe r ence t o thr eat s of ki dnappi ng i n hi s r emoval hear i ng t es t i m ony . E l ezi gave no i ndi cat i on w hat everi n hi s t es t i m onythathe had e verbeen threa tene d w ith k idn ap p ing . T h ere fo re, th e re co rd d o es n o t com p el rev ersa l of the IJ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. 2 B eca us e El ezi cannots how pas tper s ecut i on, he i s notent i t l ed t o the pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on, and he di d notm ake the r equi r ed s how i ng thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed bythe Soci al i s tPar tyi f he i s r eturned t o A l bani a. T he 2004 C o u n tryR e p o rt d e sc rib e s th e rise o f th e D e m o c ra tic P a rtyw ith in A lb a n ia, a n d w ith th a t, the w i l l i ngnes s and abi l i tyof the A l bani an governm entt o pr ot ectE l ezi fr om the l aw l es s nes s of ce r t ai n m ember s of the Soci al i s tPar ty . T he C ountryR eports t at es that m uni ci pal el ect i ons t ook pl ace i n 2003, and the D emocr at i c and Soci al i s tpart i es hel d t he m a jo rityo f se a ts in th e P a rliam e n t. F u rth e rm o re , w e a re n o t co m p e lled to d isa g re e w ith the I J thatE l ezi ’ s fatherhas notencount er ed anypr obl ems i n the tw o y ear s pr ece di ng t he re m o v a l h e a rin g . S e e L ie v . A sh c ro f t, 39 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ W ]h e n f a m ily m ember s r emai n i n pet i t i oner ' s nat i ve countryw i thoutm eet i ng harm , and ther e i s noi ndi vi dual i zed s how i ng thatpet i t i onerw oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on, the

rea so n ab lene ss o f a p eti ti o n er' s w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n is dim inishe d ”). B ec au se E lezi fa il ed to sh o w p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a rea so n ab le fe ar o f f u ture p e rse c u tio n u n d e r th e lo w e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f re q u ire d f

o r a sy lu m , h e is n e c e ss a rily i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . See I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser v. v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 430- 32 ( 1987) . I n addi t i on, the I J concl uded thatE l ezi di d notm eethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be t or tur ed upon hi s r eturn t o A l bani a, 8 C . F. R . §§ 208. 16, 208. 18, and w e conc l ude thatt he re c o rd d o e s n o t c o m p e l a d if f e re n t c o n c lu s io n . F inally , E lezi’s co n tention that h is r igh t t o d u e p roc ess w as v iolated b ythe B o ard ’s aff i r m ance w i thoutopi ni on, and af fi r m ance bya s i ngl e B oar d m emberr atherthan a thr eem e m b e r p a n e l, is c o n tr a ry to e s ta b lis h e d p re c e d e n t in th is c ir c u it. D ia , 3 5 3 F .3 d a t 2 4 5 . H i s cas e s at i s fi es the cr i t er i a fors tr eaml i ni ng gi ven thathi s ar gum ent s w er e cove r ed by s ett l ed as y l um l aw , 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) ; cf. Sm r i ko v. A s hcr oft , 387 F. 3d 279, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( s i ngl e B oar d m emberact ed arbi tr ar i l yand capr i ci ous l ybyi s s ui ng an aff i r m ance w i thoutopi ni on i n cas e pr es ent i ng novel and s ubs t ant i al l egal i s s ues w i thout p re c e d e n t), an d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h t to a n in d iv id u a lize d d e ter m in a tio n w a s a c c o rd e d to hi m bythe I J , w ho i s s ued a r eas oned dec i s i on. See D i a, 353 F. 3d at240. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

9