2004 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 12-16-2004 

# L um a j v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2854

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Lum a j v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 70. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/70NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2854
NIKE LUM AJ,

Petitioner
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNI TED STATES OF AMERICA

On Petiti on for Review of a Decisi on of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (BIA No. A75-452-022)
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 26, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , FIS HE R a nd B EC KE R, Circuit Judges (Fil ed: December 16, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
SC IRI CA , Chief Judge
. Petiti oner Nike Lum aj seeks review of the Board of Imm igration Appeals’ decisio n aff irming with out o pinion the de cision o f the Im migra tion Ju dge to deny his2

applic ation f or po litical asylum and w ithhold ing o f rem oval. W e hav e jurisd iction to
re vi ew the Bo ar d’ s order und er8 U. S. C. § 125 2. We wil l a ffi rm.

I. Bac kground Nik e Lu maj is a native and c itizen o f A lbania wh o gre w u p in n orther n A lbania near the Yugoslavian bor der. For most of his life , Lumaj li ved with his parents and four sibl ings, all of

whom are Catholic. Lumaj maintai ns that his famil y’ s proble ms origi nated in 1945, twenty- two year s before he was born, as a result of his gr andfather ’s opposi tion to the pos t-World War IIcommunist occupat ion of Albani a. As a res ult of hi s poli tica l acti vity , communist

authori ties arres ted Lumaj’s grandfather sever al ti mes and
ex pr op ria ted m os t o f h is r ea l p ro pe rty. In 19 80, L um aj, with his pa rents a nd sib lings, attem pted to flee A lbania on f oot, but the fam ily was ap preh ende d at the Yu gosla vian b orde r. His f ather w as sen tence d to twelve y ears i n prison f or tryi ng to escape the country . Authori ties likewis e sentenc ed Lumaj, his mother, and sibl ings t o an inte rnment camp where the y worked fr om 1980- 1985 in an agri cultur al cooper ative . Upon thei r rel ease, Lumaj , his mother and siblings returned to the familyhome, which in t he inte rim had been vandalized bymembers of the communist re gime. For t he next t wo years , Lumaj worked (vol untari ly ) in an agricult ural
coo per ative unt il the Ar my d raft ed h im to fulf ill his c om pul sory se rvic e ob ligat ion
. After two y ears, Lumaj sati sfied hi s mili taryobligat ion, received a di scharge, and began working const

ructi on jobs. In 1993, when the c ommunist regi me fell, Lumaj and1 Beginning on March 1, 2003, INS became a part of t he Department of Homeland Security pur suant t o Homeland SecurityAct of 2002 , Pub. L. No. 107-296, 110 St at. 2135 (Nov . 25, 2002). 3 his famil y j oined the Association of Formerl y Pol iti call y Per secuted Per sons in an attempt to regai n possessi on of the re al proper ty taken fr om Lumaj’s grandfat her and to organize
reno vation s of S t. Nich olas C hurc h, a C atholic chur ch loc ated in their villag e. De spite th e fa llof c ommun is m, manyvi ll age rs who r emai nedsy mpat hetic to th e fo rme r r egi me thre aten ed th ose wh o atte mp ted to rep air S t. Ni cho las. In January 1997, Lumaj stopped worki ng and began making preparati ons to l eave Albania. In April 1997, he acqui red an Albani an passport . A short time l ater, he colle cted $7, 000, appare ntly from frie nds, i n order t o purchase a c ounterfe it pas sport and an airp lane tick et to the Un ited Sta tes. Lu maj a ttemp ted to e nter the Un ited Sta tes w ith his count erfei t passpor

t, but was detaine d at the airport by immigration offi cial s. Duri ng an airpor t interview in whic h he was assis ted bya trans lator , Lumaj cl aimed he sought entryto escape the on-goi ng war in Albania , that he had no pol iti cal affi liat ions, and that he feared r eturni ng to Albania because he had bor

rowed money he coul d not payback. In May 1 997, t

he Immig ration a nd Natur ali zati on Serv ice ( INS) 1 served Lumaj with a notic e to ap pear f or rem oval p rocee ding s. INS allege d that L um aj, wh o is no t a United States citizen or national , ent ered the United States without proper document ation and g ained entry by “fra ud o r willfu lly misrepre senting a ma terial fac t” in viol ation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a )(6)( C)(i) , and furt her intended to gai n admissi on as an immigr ant4

without pr oper documentation in vi olati on of 8 U.S.C. § (a )(7)( A)(i)( I). Lumaj petit ioned for asyl um and w ithholding of removal. After a hearing, t he Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the appli cati on on both counts . Lumaj fi led a timelyappeal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA) affirmed without opini on

. II. Although we general ly review order s of the BIA, we al so revi ew immigrati on jud ge o rde rs w her e the BIA aff irms wit hou t op inio n. See D ia v. A shcro ft , 353 F.3d 228, 245 (3d C ir. 2003 ) (en b anc). W e revie w f actua l findin gs, inclu ding credib ility dete rmin ation s, un der a su bsta ntial evid enc e sta nda rd. See 8 U. S. C. § 125 2 ( b) (4 )( B) (codifying INS v. Eli as-Zacari as , 502 U .S. 478 , 483- 84 (1 992 )); Tarr aw ally v. A shcro ft , 338 F.3d 180, 184 (3d C ir. 2003). Fi ndings of past and future persecution are li kewise sub ject to sub stan tial ev iden ce re view
. Ga o v. A shcro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002). Under the subst antia l evide nce standard, fi ndings ar e upheld i f a reasonabl e fact finder c ould reac h a simil ar concl usion base d on the rec ord. We willrevers e onlyif the IJ’s f ind ing s are uns upp orte d by th e rec ord or a re b ase d on me re co njec ture . Id. The IJ is entitl ed to rel y on r ecord evi dence of conditions i n the appl icant ’s home country, which may be i llus trated by St ate Department report s and reports fr om non-governmental org aniz ation s. Id. at 278 -79; Dia , 353 F.3d
. at 249 ; Ch ang v. IN S, 119 F.3d 1055, 1064 (3d Cir. 199 7) (discussing n on-gov ernmen tal reports).5 III. Here, the Im migration Ju dge cred ited Lum aj’s testimony regarding h is family’s experie nces from World War IIuntil1990. But the IJ di d not credi t Lumaj’s a ccount of the e ven ts su rrou ndi ng h is de par ture fro m A lban ia an d en try into the U nited Sta tes. Parti cularl y, the IJ discr edite d Lumaj’s expl anati on of why he sought asy lum in the United S tates, and of ho w he raised $7,00 0 for false trave l docum ents and airfa re. The IJ cite d discr epancies between Lumaj’s airport statement and his asy lum appli cati on, and considered evidence from the Stat e Department and ot her sourc es detai ling t

he conditions in Albania . Considering the e vidence as a whole, the Immigration Judge concluded Lumaj’s account

of his departure fr om Albania and entr y i nto the United State s lacked
cr ed ib ilit y. The adverse cr edibil ity

finding i s supported by mat erialinconsi stenci es in t he record. Th e IJ found discrepanc ies betwee n Lum aj’s initial answers given at the airport to an immigr ation of

ficer and lat er res ponses on his asy lum appli cati on. Althou gh airport interviews are not

necessarily

“vali d grounds upon which t o base a fi nding that an applic ant is not credible, ” see D ia , 353 F.3d at 257 (cit ation omi tted) , here t he findi ng of adverse credibil ity

rest s on Lumaj’s own tes timony , offer ed with the assis tance of an in te rp re te r, re gar di ng the c ir cums ta nce s s urro und in g hi s de partu re fr om Al ban ia . I n su m, th e r ec or d s up po rts a f in di ng of ad ve rse cr ed ib ilit y.6 IV. The Immigrati on Judge als o concluded Lumaj fai ls t o qualif y as a refugee for asylum pur pos es. See 8 U .S.C. § 115 8(b)(1 ). A re fug ee is an alien w ho ca nno t return to his or he r country of origin “be cause of pers ecuti on or a well- founded fear of per secuti on based on race , rel igion, nationa lit y, membership i n a parti cular s ocial group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(a). To establi sh refugee status, an appli cant must dem ons trate a ge nui ne a nd r eas ona ble f ear o f pe rsec utio n in the n ative cou ntry. Gao, 299 F.3 d at 2 72. T he te st is b oth sub jectiv e an d ob jectiv e. Luk wa go v. A shcro ft , 329 F.3d 157, 176-77 ( 3d Cir. 2003 ). Whethe r an applican t demon strates past persecution or a
we ll-fo und ed f ear o f fu ture per sec utio n is a fac tual d eterm inati on. Id. We have establi shed that persecution is an “extr eme concept that does not include everysort of

treat ment our soci etyregards as offensi ve.” Fat in v. INS , 12 F.3d 1233, 1243 (3d Cir. 1993). Per secuti on include s “thr eats to life , confi nement, t ortur e, and economic res tri ctions so severe that t hey cons tit

ute a re al threat t o life or freedom. ” Lin v. INS , 238 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 200 1) (citations omitted). Here, the Immigration Judge found Lumaj di d not reas onablyfear pers ecuti on upon returning to Albani a. Rely ing on reports fr om the Stat e Department and nongovernmentalorganizations , the IJ emphasi zed the change d countryconditi ons after the fall of the communist

regime and found l ittle evi dence of curr ent rel igious or poli tica l persecution in Albani a. Butt ressi ng this conclusi on, a Department of Stat e opinion l ette r7

states that

any adve rsit

y Lumaj mayface upon ret urning t o Albania i s more a res ult of general inst abili ty and poverty rather than targeted religi ous or poli tica l pers ecuti on. The IJ al so noted t

hat nort hern Albania , Lumaj’s home region, is pre dominantl y Cathol ic,
ren der ing relig iou s pe rsec utio n les s like ly. The IJ furth er fou nd th at neith er Lu maj’s military w ork a ssignm ents n or his brother ’s inj uries establ ish a well -founded fear of future pe rsecution. Whil e viole nce again st a fam ily mem ber m ay “sup port fo r a claim of p ersecu tion an d in so me in stance s is suffici ent to e stabl ish [a well -founded fear of] pers ecuti on,” Bab allah v . Ashc roft , 335 F.3d 981 , 988 ( 9th Cir. 2003) , the IJ rea soned that the fact s here, where Lumaj admits he doe s no t kn ow exa ctly w hat h app ene d to his b roth er, d o no t me et thi s thre sho ld. Like wise , the IJ fo und that an y past per secu tion su ffere d by Lu maj o r his fa mily, wh ile reprehensible, di d not in light of the fundamental change in country conditions give rise to a w ell-f oun ded fea r offutu re p erse cutio n. See Lukwago , 329 F.3d at 173-74 (ci ting 8 C .F .R . § 2 08 .13 (b )(1 ) f or pr op os itio n t ha t a s ho w in g o f p as t p er se cu tio n i s re bu tta bl e b y a show ing of ch anged country conditions). Finall y, the IJfound that the more re cent incide nt invol ving Lumaj’s f amilyhome did not const itute persecut

ion. Accordi ngly , the IJ de term ined that L um aj did not esta blish a w ell-f oun ded fea r offutu re p erse cutio n. The Immigrati on Judge’s or der based on adve rse cr edibil ity and persecut

ion findings is supported bythe rec ord. The IJdid not er r in determining t

hat changed8

cou ntry co ndi tion s un der min e L um aj’s c laim of f ear o f fu ture per sec utio n. Lu kw ago , 329 F.3d at 174. V. Lumaj also chal lenges t he BIA’s decis ion to af firm the immigration judge wit hout opinion. We resolved this i ssue in Dia , w he re we h el d tha t “ not hi ng i n the INA specifi call y r equires the BIA to expl ain it s decis ions. ” 353 F.3d at 236 (quoti ng Abdulai v. Ash croft , 239 F.3d 542, 555 (3d Cir. 2001)). Additional ly , we stated that “[n]ei ther t

he Constit ution nor Congress guarantees a de novo review bythe BIA, nor do t hey guar antee a right to a ful ly reasoned opi nion by the BIA.” Id . at 24 3 (c itatio n om itted ). VI. Conclusion For th e f or eg oi ng rea so ns , w e wi llaf fi rm t he or de r o f the BIA
.