2005 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 4-15-2005 

# B regu 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 . 04-1534

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " B r e gu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1353. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1353NOT 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. 04- 1534 S P I RO BR E GU, Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E UN I TED STATES Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 94- 752- 403) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 10, 2005 B efore: N Y G A A R D , M cK E E and R E N D E L L , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed A pr i l 15, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p ell an t Sp ir o B reg u p eti ti o n ed this C o u rtfo r rev iew o f a d ec isi o n b ythe B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on forpol i t i cal as y l um , as w el l asB r egu di d notas s er ta cl ai m underthe C A T befor e the I J but , i n r ender i ng heropi ni on, 1 th e IJ n e v e rth e les s a d d re ss e d th e iss u e , an d B re g u n o w a rg u e s o n a p p e a l h e is e n tit led to its p ro te c tio n . 2 hi s cl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) . 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. I. B reg u , a n ati v e o f A lban ia, en tered the U n it ed S tat es w ith o u t a va li d en try documenti n A ugus tof 2001. W i t hi n one y ear , he fi l ed 

### awri tt e n appl i c at i on for a s ylum as se rting that he had been perse cute d b y Albania’ s Socia li st

Regim e, wh o h ad se iz ed powe r fr om the De m oc r at i c Party

fol l owi ng al arge - s c a l e financ i a lc ol l aps e and e ns ui ng c ha os ove r

as pan of m onths i n 1997. Br e gu fi r s t appe ar e d be for e the I mmi gr at i on Judge (“IJ”) o nO cto b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 an d , thro u g hco un sel, co n ced edth at h e w as sub j ect to rem o v al. H e so u g ht relief thro u g hasylum

an dw ithh o ld in g o f

rem o v al. 1 A t a h e a rin g re g a rd in g h is c laim s f o r p ro tec tio n , B re g u tes tifie d b e f o re th e IJ th a t: 1) he j oi ned the D emocr at i c Par t yi n 1992 as a s ym pathi zer ; 2) ats om e poi ntaft erthe Soci al i s tPar t yt ook pow eri n 1997, he had pa r t i ci pat ed i n a pol i t i cal demonstr at i on, dur i ng w hi ch he w as at t acke d and bea t en, r equi r i ng hos pi t al i zat i on for , among ot her i nj ur i es , a br oken el bow ; 3) al m os ti m m edi at el yaft erhi s r el eas e fr om the hos pi t al , on a p p ro x im a telyS e p tem b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 8 , h e w a s a rre ste d in h is h o m e b yp o lice , w h o h e ld h im f o rt wo d a y s a n d q u e s t i o n e d h i m r e g a r d i n g th e De mo c r a t i c P a r t y , b u td i d n o ti n j u r e h i m;3

4) he comm ence d hi di ng w i t h cous i ns i n t he t ow n of Pont ar i t , w her e he r emai ned forfour t o fi ve y ear s , t o ens ur e hi s s afe t y ; and 5) i n M ay1999 he l earned thathi s br otherhad bee n s hoti n t he hea d w hi l e w al ki ng hom e – B r egu fi r s ts t at ed bef or e the I J thathe di d not k n o w w h o th e sh o o ter w a s a n d th e p o lice f a iled to in v e stig a te a n d th e n late r in h is t est i m on ysurm i sed t hat i tm usthav e been the social i st s beca use th e p o lice h a d f a iled to i nves t i gat e. I n addi t i on, B r egu s ubm i t t ed as evi dence a hos pi t al cert i fi cat e s t at i ng thathe h a d b e e n a d m itte d w ith a b ro k e n h a n d “ f o r t h e p e ri o d o f

tim e f ro m M a rc h 1 5 -3 0 , 1 9 9 7 ,” as w el l as a ce r t i fi cat e fr om t he K or ce pol i ce de par t m entat t es t i ng thatB r egu had be en a rr e s te d f

o r p a rt ic ip a tin g in a d e m o c ra tic in s p ir e d p ro te s t o n S e p te m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 8 . I n an or al deci s i on, t he I J deni ed B r egu’ s as y l um appl i cat i on bas ed on a f i ndi ng t hatB r egu’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e – t o t he contr ary , the I J found hi s t es t i m onyt o be “c o m p let elyincre d ible” a n d co n clud ed that the c ase w as “ an inv en ti o n . ” M ay1 4 , 2 0 0 3 IJ O r al O p. at10. T he I J w as t r oubl ed by , and found Bre gu l acke d cr edi bi l i t ybas ed upon, dis crepancies betw een h i s asy l um app l i cat i on and his heari ng t est i m on y . T he IJ al so expr es s ed di s bel i ef a s a r es ul tof the i nt ernal i ncons i s t enci es i n B r egu’ s ow n t es t i m onyas w el l as betw een the or al t es t i m onyhe gave and the document aryevi dence he pr es ent ed at t he hea r i ng. Fi nal l y , t he I J not ed that , even i f dee m ed cr edi bl e – as t o t he demonstr at i on, s ubs equenti nj ur i es , hos pi t al s t ayand pol i ce de t ent i on – B r egu had nots i nce e ncount er ed a n yis s u e s w ith th e [ S o c ia lis t P a rt y ] p o lic e . Id . a t 1 1 . T h e B IA a f

f irm e d , co n c lu d in g th a t “th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty4

fin d ing is ad eq u atelysu p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd.” It agre ed w ith the IJ tha t “[t]he re w ere s i gni fi canti ncons i s t enci es on a numberof i s s ues , i ncl udi ng dat es the r es pondentw as all eg ed lyin h iding an d the d ates o f in cide n ts of claim ed p erse cu ti o n . ” F eb . 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 B IA O p . a t 1 . B re g u tim e ly ap p e a le d to th is C o u rt . II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

th e B IA p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l m a yg ra n t as y lu m to a n ya lien w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to r etur n t o hi s orherhom e countr y“bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T he bur den t o pr ove a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on l i es w i t h t he appl i cant , w ho m us tes t abl i s h a genui ne fea rof per s ecut i on and demonstr at e thata r eas onabl e per s on i n t he s ame ci r cumst ance s s im ila rl yw o u ld f

e a r p e rs e c u tio n . A n appl i cat i on foras y l um al s o cons t i tut es an appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of rem ov al un der I N A § 2 41 (b) (3) (A ). S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 3(b) ( 20 04 ). T o est abli sh ent i t l ementt o t hi s pr ot ect i on, an al i en, s uch as B r egu, m us ts how ther e exi s t s a “c l ear p ro b a b ili ty ” th a t h e w ill b e p e rse c u ted o n a c c o u n t o f a sp e c if ied g ro u n d , in th is c a se h is t i es t o t he D emocr at i c Par t y , i f r etur ned t o A l bani a. See Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hi s s t andar d r equi r es a s how i ng that“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan not t h a tt h e a l i e n w o u l d b e s u b j e c tt o p e r s e c u t i o n ” u p o n r e tu r n t o th e a l i e n ’ s h o m e c o u n t r y.5

I N S v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407, 424; 81 L . E d. 2d 321; 104 S. C t . 2489 ( 1984) . W her e an al i en i s unabl e t o demonstr at e ent i t l ementt o as y l um , he l i kew i s e ca nnotm eetthe s t r i ct er s t andar d r equi r ed t o s ecur e w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . L ukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 1 8 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T o obt ai n r el i ef unde rC A T , B r egu mustes t abl i s h “‘ t hati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not t hathe . . . w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o t he pr opos ed countr yof r emoval . ’ ” Sevoi an v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 -75 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o ti n g 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2)). U nl i ke es t abl i s hi ng a “r eas onabl e fe arof per s ecut i on” foras y l um , “the s t andar d forr el i ef [underC A T ] has no s ubj ect i ve component , buti ns t ead r equi r es the al i en t o es t abl i s h, by obj ect i ve evi dence , t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” I d. at175 ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W i t h r es pectt o ent i t l ementt o al l of thes e form s of r el i ef, the appl i cant ’ s ow n t es t i m onym aybe s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t y , s o l ong as the t es t i m onyi s cr edi bl e. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( a) . I ndeed, “[a ] n al i en’ s cr edi bi l i t y , by i t s el f, m ays at i s fyhi s bur den ordoom hi s cl ai m . ” D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 247 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (en b an c). W h ere , as h ere , the B IA issue s a d ec isi o n o n the m erit s an d n o t si m p lya su m m ary aff i r m ance , w e r evi ew t he dec i s i on of the B I A , notthe I J . G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W h ethe r or n o t B reg u h as d em o n str ated p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i s a fa ctual ques t i on thatw e r evi ew underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. W e mayr ever s e the B I A ’ s deci s i on onl yi f “a ny6

re a s o n a b le a d

ju d ic a to r [ w o u ld ] b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). “T h ere fo re, w e m u st up h o ld the B IA ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s if theyare

‘ s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w h o le. ’” Z h en H u a L i v. A tt o rne yG en era l of the U n it ed S tat es, 20 0 5 U . S . A p p . L E X IS 4013, *9- 10 ( 3d C i r . M ar ch 10, 2005) ( quot i ng I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481, 1 1 7 L . E d . 2 d 3 8 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 8 1 2 (19 9 2 )). III . 

### T h e B IAf

o un dth at th e IJ’s adv erse cred ib ility d etermin atio nw as ad equ ately s upport e d by

the r e c or d due t o “si gn i fi cant i nco nsi st encies on a nu m ber of is sues, i ncl udi ng dat es t he r es pondentw as al l egedl yi n hi di ng and the dat es of i nci dent s of c la im e d p e rs e c u tio n .” F e b . 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 B IA O p . a t 1 . 

### As not e d i n the or a lde c i s i on of the IJ, p art o f th e reco rdb ef

o re u s, B reg u ’s testim o ny reg ard in gth e d ates an dev ents d escrib edab o v e w ere in co n sistent an dco n f lictin g o nsev eral f

ro nts w ithth e d o cum ents he i ni ti a l ly

s ubmi tt e d i n s upport

of a s ylum . For

e xam pl e , on hi s a s ylum

pe t i t i on, he fa i l e d t o m e nt i on the fi ve - ye ar pe ri od that

he a l l e ge dly

s pe nt hi di ng wi th hi s c ous i ns on ac coun t of h is invo lvem ent with the Dem ocrati c Party befo recoming to A m eric a. Th e I J s t at e d that

hi s c l a i m of ne e d t o hi de di d not

fi t wi th hi s othe r

c l a i m s not i ng that

Br e gu w as “eith er ex ag g eratin g th e num b er o f years . . . o r, inth e altern ativ e is lyin g ab o ut it com plet ely , or . . . do es no t provide a s ensible c hron olog y of the fac ts in his c as e. ” May 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 IJ O ral O p . at 8 .7

I n Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 476–77 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , w e obs erved thatan I J s houl d be ca ut i ous befor e pl aci ng t oo m uch w ei ghton a di s cr epanc ybetw een a n as y l um appl i cat i on and s ubs equentt es t i m ony . C aut i on i s r equi r ed i n l i ghtof the nu m erous fact ors that m i gh tm ake itdiffi cultfor an ali en to ar t i culat e his ci rcum st ances, in c lu d in g lan g u a g e d if

f icu lti e s. E v e n so , B re g u ’s te stim o n yis a t o d d s in ter m s o f b o th s ubs t ance and chr onol ogyw i t h hi s pr i ors t at ement s . T he I J found thatB r egu’ s t es t i m ony “is an inv en ti o n an d n o t w o rth yo f b eli ef ” (M ay1 4 , 2 0 0 3 IJ O ral O p . at 10 ), an d the B IA aff i r m ed. A s s um i ng t he w or s tof the eve nt s al l eged byB r egu t o have oc curr ed, he di d not offe rcr edi bl e evi dence t hatt he eve nt s w er e mot i vat ed byhi s ow n per s onal i nvol vement in th e D e m o c ra tic P a rty . F in a lly , the f a c t th a t h e w a s a b le to liv e f o r se v e ra l y e a rs in A lb a n ia w ith o u t in c id e n t u n d e rm in e s th e lik e lih o o d o f a n yp e rs e c u tio n u p o n re tu rn . G i ven B r egu’ s fai l ur e t o adequa t el yexpl ai n i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s t es t i m onyand as y l um appl i cat i on, and fa i l ur e t o offe rcr edi bl e evi dence conce r ni ng the l i kel i hood of futur e persecut i on i n A l ban i a, w e con cl ud e t hat the B IA ’s affirm ance o f t he IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on and deni al of r el i ef w er e bas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we wi l l DE NY th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.