NOT RECOMMENDED F OR P UBLICATION File Na me: 12a0117n.06 No. 10-3414 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

ADNAN BU SHATI ; VAL BO NA B USHATI ; EUGENT BU SHATI ; and ERI SA BUSHATI ,

Petitioners,

v.

ERI C H. HOL DER, J r., United States Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF THE B OARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

Be fore : SI L ER, CL AY, and ROG ERS, C ircuit J udg es. SILE R , Circuit J udg e. Adnan Bushati and his family wer e denied asy lum and withholding of remova l by an immigra tion judge (“I J ”) i n 2006. That decision was aff irmed by the Boa

rd of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) in 2008. The BI A denied Bushati’s motion to reope n the proce eding s based on chang ed country conditions in Albania, and Bushati petitions this court for revie w of that decision. He argues that the BIA abused its discretion by err oneously deter mining that the evidenc e prese nted by Busha

ti was previously available and did not establish chang ed country conditions. For the re asons stated be low, we DENY the petition for re view. I. Busha ti, his children Eug ent and Erisa, and his wife Valbona (collec tively “Petitioners”) are natives and citizens of Albania. When the Depa rtment of Homeland Security serve d Bushati in 2004No. 10-3414

Bushati v. Holder with a notice to ap p ea r an d answe r to char g es that he was remova ble for rema ining in the United States bey ond an authorized date, Petitioners soug ht asy lum, withholding of remova l, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”)

. Busha ti alleg ed that he suffe red ong oing perse cutio n i n Al bania beca use of his political beliefs and involvement with the Albanian Democr atic Party . He state d that on sever al occasions from 1991 to 2003 he was threa tened, taken into cust o d y b y p o l i ce, and beate n beca use of his political opinion. Busha ti’s son Eug ent also suffe red hara ssment and was the victim of an appar ent kidnapping attempt in 2002. The I J denied Petitioners’ applications for relief and protec tion from remova l. The I J found that Petitioners’ application for asy lum was untimely beca use it was fi l ed more than a y ear afte r Bu s h at i ’s en try into the United States. Wit h reg ard to Petitioners’ reque st for withholding of

remo v al an d CAT protec tion, the I J deter mined that Bushati did not prese nt sufficie ntly cre dible testimony or corr oborative evidenc e to support the reque st. Finally , the I J conclude d that Petitioners failed to e stablish a clea

r probability of future perse cution or torture beca use the Democr atic Party was in power in Albania. The BI A di smi s s ed P et i tioners’ appeal, adopting and aff irming the I J ’s deter minations, and this court denied the petition for revie w. Bushati v. Mukase y , 310 F. App’x 883 (6th Cir. 2009). On September 17, 2009, Petitioners filed a motion to reope n the proce eding s with the BI A, claiming a rene wed fea

r of perse cution in light of chang ed conditions in Albania. I n support of the motion, Petition e r s s u

b mi tt e d tw o n e wspape r article s reg arding rec ent elec tions and a statement from Valbona Busha ti’s sister explaining that she is worrie d for the Bushati family ’s safe ty beca use - 2 -No. 10-3414

Bushati v. Holder “par ticular persons of the past sy stem are looking for” Petitio n er s . P et i t ioners also submitt ed a

sworn statement from Be rnd J

. Fische r, a profe ssor at I ndiana University , For t Way ne, with expertise in Ba lkan history and Albanian society

. Finally , Petitioners included two new asy lum applications and supporting statements from B ushati and Eug ent. The BIA denied the motion to reope n, finding that Pe t i t i o n er s had failed to demonstrate chang ed country conditions, espec ially in light of the I J ’s i nitial adver se credibil i t y d etermination reg arding Bushati. The BI A also stated t hat m uch of the i nformation in cluded with the m otion to reope n was pre viously

available and could have bee n prese nted at the initial hear ing in 2006. II. “The denial of a motion to reope n . . . is revie wed for an abuse of discretion.” Denk o v. INS , 3 5 1 F. 3 d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003). Aliens are g ener ally permitted to file one motion to reope n proce eding s within 90 day s of the entry of the final order of remova l. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(7)

. The time and number limit s do not a pply , howeve r, if a motion re g arding asy lum is “base d on chang ed country conditions arising in the country o f nationality or the country to which remova l has been order ed, if such evidenc e is ma terial and was not available and would not ha ve been discovere d or prese nted at the previous proce eding .” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(7) (C)(ii); 8 CFR § 1003.2(c) (3)( ii); see also 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)( 4)(i) (explaining that the same require ments of chang ed country conditions and pre viously

unavailable evidenc e apply to withholding of re moval under the CAT). III. Evidence can support a motion to reope n proce eding s only if it was “not available and would not have been discovere d or prese nted at the previous proce eding .” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(7) (C)(ii). - 3 -No. 10-3414

Bushati v. Holder Most of the evidenc e submitted by Petitioners, inc luding the statements from Bushati, his son and sister-in-law , and much of Professor Fische r’s statement, was available in 2006 and could have been prese nted then. The asy lum applications and statements from Busha ti and Eug ent mere ly discuss events that took place prior to 2006, with the exception of the last para g raphs. Other than these last para g raphs, which simply mention the rec ent elec tions and do not explain any chang ed country conditions at all, the evidenc e conta ined in the statements could have bee n prese nted at the 2006 he aring

. Petitioners also submitt ed a statement from Valbona Bushati’s sister stating that “par ticular persons of the past sy stem are looking for [t he Busha ti] family and espec ially the son, Eug ent Adnan Busha ti and t h e fa t h er , Adnan Busha ti. Their return in Albania is a g reat dang er beca use in our country the real democr acy did not win y et.” Although t h i s s t at em ent was made in 2009, there is nothing to sug g est that it descr ibes post-2006 events or that it could not have been submitt ed at the initial hearing

. 1 Finally , much of Professor Fische r’s s t atement rela tes to Albania’ s political and social climate g ener ally and could have been prese nted in 2006. The focus of the statement is the “political culture” in Albania, which, “still informed by its Stalinis t past,” “is centr al to the unstable conditions in Albania and the dang er to Adna n Bushati.”

Even assuming the sister-in-law ’s statement about “par ticular persons of the past sy stem” looking 1 for the Busha

ti family was based on post-2006 events, it is not evidenc e of chang ed country conditions in Albania. I t is also too vag ue and conclusory , as “spec ulative conclusions [and] mere asser tions of fea

r of possible perse cution” are insufficient to support a motion to reope n. Harche nko v. INS , 379 F.3d 405, 410 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation marks omitted). - 4 -No. 10-3414

Bushati v. Holder IV. P et i tioners are corr ect that some of the evidenc e was not previously available beca use i t contains information about events t h at have taken place since 2006. The evidenc e submitt ed by Petitioners that was not previously available includes two news article s and the portions of Fische r’s statement that discuss the 2007 and 2009 e lections and other rec ent eve nts in Albania.

“ ‘I n deter mining whether evidenc e acc ompany ing a moti o n to r e o p e n d e mo n s tr a te s a ma te r ia l chang e in country conditions that would justify reope ning, [t he BI A] compar e[s] the evidenc e of country conditions submitt ed with the motion to those that exis ted at the time of the merits hear ing below.’” Bi Feng Liu v. Holder , 560 F.3d 485, 491 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Matter of S-Y -G, 24 I

. & N. Dec

. 247, 253 (B I A 2007)) (alter ations in orig inal). “[A]n alien filing a motion to reope n based

on chang ed country conditions cannot rely on specula tive conclusions or mere asser tions of fea

r of possible perse cu t i o n, but instead m ust offe r reasonably specific information s howing a real t hreat of individual perse cution.” Harche nko , 379 F.3d at 410 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed). The news article s and Fische r’s statement descr ibe curr ent country conditions and rela tively

rec ent events, but the y do not de monstrate that the conditions in Albania have chang ed since 2006

or that any supposed chang es war rant a reope ning of the proce eding s in this case . For example, the two news article s discuss controve rsies surrounding the 2009 elec tion, including problems with vote counts and the Socialist Party ’s l eg al challeng es to the re sults. As portions of Fischer ’s statement indicate, howeve r, rathe r than demonstrate chang ed country conditions, these article s actua lly show the same pr oblems that have be en plag uing A lbania for many y ear s:

- 5 -No. 10-3414

Bushati v. Holder The [2009] elec tion itself was deeme d by some observe rs as a marke d improvement while ot hers were not willing to consider it more tha[n] a sl ight improvement over previous elec tions.

. . . As in past elec t i o n s , [publ ic] distrust beca me particula

rly acute during the vote counting proce ss. . . . The[] rec ent events [i n Albania] fall into a fa miliar pattern of

elec tion fraud a

nd violence. Fische r Aff

. ¶¶ 10, 11 (empha sis added). F ischer a lso stated that Busha ti “should continue to fea r the police who arr ested, th re at en ed and beat him in the past,” id. ¶ 15 (empha sis added) , and that “cor ruption remains a wi d es prea d and serious problem” in Albania, id. ¶ 18 (empha sis added)

. These statements sug g est that while the conditions in Albania may be far from ideal, they have not chang ed, as require d by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(7) (C)(ii). See B i Feng Liu , 560 F.3d at 492 (holding that State Depa

rtment repor

t detailing China’s poor human rig hts rec ord actua lly demonstrated that the conditi ons in China “re mained c o n sistent”). Moreove r, Bushati’s own Democratic Party won the 2009 elec tions and is curr ently still in power , underc utting Petitioners’ argument that conditions in Albania have chang ed such tha t the proce eding s should be reope ned. Finally , Busha ti has failed to addre ss the I J ’s initial adver se cre dibilit y finding , as is require d by petitioners who file a motion to reope n. See Sako v. Gonzales , 434 F.3d 857, 866 (6th Cir. 2006). Any evidenc e subm itted by Petitioners in support of t heir mot ion to reope n is thus no t “m at er i al ” b ec au s e t h ey rema ined fac ed with the initial adver se cre dibilit y ruling and the outcome of the proce eding s is unlikely

to chang e. See I

n re Coelho , 20 I . & N . Dec . 464, 473 (B I A 1992). Fo r t hese rea sons, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Petitioners did not prese nt evidence of cha

ng ed cir cumstance s that warr anted r eopeningof these pr ocee dings. P ETIT ION DENIED.

- 6 -