NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0062n.06 F iled: Janu ary 24, 2007 No. 06-3006 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
Al ba n D a sh i; A nil a

Da sh i, Pe tit ion e rs , v. Al be rt o G on zal e s, At

tor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF D ECI SI ON OF BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

BEF ORE: SUH RH EIN RI CH , SU TTON , a nd M CK EA G UE , C ir c uit

Judg e s. McK eague, Circuit Judge. Petitioners Alban and Anila D ashi seek r eview of a dec ision of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals af

firming an immigr ation judge ’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum claim and other

relief from re moval. For the reasons provided below, we AF FI RM the orders of the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls. I. BACKG ROUND Petitioners, Alban and Anila D ashi, are natives of Alba nia. They claim that they

are a marrie d couple, a lthough the Immigration J udg e (“ I J ”) note d that Anila testified that they marrie d in 1992, an asser

tion that conflicted with their a sylum application, which stated that the date of marria g e wa s 1997. Alban cla ims that around 1997 he inher ited a phar mace utical fa ctory

thatNo. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 2 - was wor th around $7 million. Apparently , title to the factory was c ontested by

Fatos Pust ina, the brother- in-law of a

Socialist P arty

officia l, and a law suit commenced. In their brief

to this court, Petiti oners c laim that they suffe red a

number of instanc es of mistreatment in Albania: (1) threats by Pusti na’s body

g uards dire cting Alban to stay awa y from court; (2) Alban’s house beingsprayed with bullets from an a utomatic wea

pon; (3) Alban be ing
arr ested a nd beate n in “y et another

attempt to intim idate him beca use his next C ourt date w as less than 2 wee ks awa

y ”; (4) thr eats be ing dir ecte d at Petitioners’ daughter; and ( 5) Anila be ing punched in the stomac h by one of the men that had thre atene d their daughter on the da y befor e Alban wa s to appea

r in court. Petitioners claim that they left Albania

on Marc h 27, 2000, with Alban ar riving in the United States on or about Nove mber 14, 2000, a nd Anila ar

riving on or about Mar ch 6, 2001. Al ba n c la ime d th a t he c ame to t he Un ite d St a te s “ on ly

fo r t o [si c ] es c a

pe .” JA at 83 . H e c la ims that he wa s a member

of the De mocratic Party , althoug h he “mostly . . . financ ed funds.” J A at 60 . Pe tit ion e rs we re se rv e d w ithNo tic e s to Ap pe ar o n O c tob e r 1 2, 20 01 , a lle g ingre mov a bil ity for e ntry without valid documents pursuant to section 237(a )(1) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (“ I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(a )(A) . They conce ded re movability

and re quested relief in the form of a sylum pursuant to section 208 of the I NA, withholding of

remova l pursuant to section 241(b)( 3) of the I NA, and w ithholding of re moval pursuant to the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture, 8 C.F .R. § 1208.16. The I J denied r elief to Petitioners af ter c onducting a hea

ringon J une 15, 2004. He
co n cl u d edth atP et i t i o n er s we re n o tcr ed i b l e, th atth ey “f ai l edm i s er ab l y ” i nd em o n s tra t i n g aNo. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 3 - well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution, and that they have not suff

ere d past perse cution. J A at 51. Fur thermore , the I J conclude d that even if they had esta blished such per secution, “c ountry conditions [ in Albania] have c hang ed re marka bly since they

left.” JA at 51. In a per

curiam decision issued on De cembe r 1, 2005, the B urea u of Immigration Appeals (“ BIA”) aff irmed, concludingthat (1) Petitioners fa iled to establish that the I J ’s cr edibility deter mination was clea rly err oneous and ( 2) eve n if it did credit Petitioners’ testimony , the I J corr ectly conclude d that A lba n d id n ot d e mon str a te that he fa c e s a c le ar p ro ba

bil ity of pe rs e c uti on

or tor tur e in Albania. Pe tit ion e rs a

pp e a l, e sse nti a lly

int e rw e avin g tw o a

rgume nts : ( 1) the I J’s c re dib ili ty deter mination was improper a

nd (2) the I J err ed in findingthat Petitioners did not qualify as
re fu g e e s. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review This court has he ld that where the B I A adopts the re asoningof the I J , it will review the decision of the I J direc tly to determine whether

the B I A’s dec ision should be upheld on appea l. Amir v. Gonzales , 4 6 7 F
. 3 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 4 ( 6 thC i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t a t i o no m i t t e d )
. T h e d e c i s i o no f th e IJ only needs to be supported by substantial evidence
. Namo v. Gonzales , 4 01 F .3 d 4 53 , 4 56 (6 th Cir . 2 00 5) . T he su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e sta

nd ard re qu ir e s th is c ourt

to u ph old the I J’s d e c isi on

so long a s it is “supported by rea sonable, substantial, and pr obative evide nce on the rec ord considere d as a whole,” a nd to reve rse only

if it determines that the e vidence compels a diff ere nt result. Shehu v. G onzales , 4 4 3 F. 3 d 4 3 5 , 4 3 7 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502No. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 4 - U. S. 4 78 , 4 81 (1 99 2) ). Th is c ourt ha s r e c og nize d th a t th e su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e sta

nd ard is a defe rential one
. Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 388 ( 6th Cir. 1998). The Attorne y

Gene ral may

g rant a sylum to an alien if the Attorne y Gene ral de termines that th e a lie n is a

re fu g e e . 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 ); Namo , 401 F.3d at 456. A ref ug ee is a ny person who is outside of the country of such pe rson’s nationality or last habitual re sidence and who is unable or unw illing to return to that c ountry beca use of pe rsec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of per secution on ac count of ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup,
or po lit ic a l op ini on . 8 U. S.C. § 1 10 1( a )( 42 ); Rreshpja v. Gonzales , 420 F.3d 551, 554 ( 6th Cir. 2005). The a lien has the burde n of proof to show that he or she is a ref ug ee. Pi lic a v . A sh c ro

ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 ( 6th Cir. 2004). I f the a sylum applicant demonstrate s that he has be en subjec ted to past perse cution, a
re butta ble pr e sumpt ion

is the re by

c re a te d o f a

we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on . 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .1 3( b) (1 ); Namo , 401 F.3d at 456. A fundame ntal chang e in circ umstances in the applicant’ s country

of orig in such that the applica nt can no long er be said to have a well-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution, however , results in the asylum application beingdenied. 8 C.F .R. § 20 8. 13 (b )( 1) (i )( A) ; Namo , 401 F.3d at 456. Otherwise, a n applicant c an obtain asy lum on the ba sis of a fe ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

on ly by de mon str a tin g tha

t hi s f e ar i s g e nu ine and

that a
rea sonable pe rson in his situation would have the similar fea r. Namo , 401 F.3d at 456 (citation omitted). An asylum application in removal proc eeding s is deemed to automatica lly include a withholding of r emoval re quest. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b). A n applicant will be g rante d withholdingNo. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 5 - of re moval if he de monstrates “a clea r proba bility of per secution” by

prese nting e vidence that shows that should he retur n to his native country , “it is more likely than not that [he] would be subject to perse cution.” IN S v . S te v ic , 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984). B eca use this standard is stricter than that applica

ble to asylum applications, if an applica nt is not eligible for

asylum, he
nece ssarily

fails to satisfy

the standar d for withholding of re moval. Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 70 3 n .3 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . L ike wi se , und e r t he Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e , th e a pp lic ant m

us t show that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be torture d if remove d to the proposed country of re moval.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c )(2)
. B. Credibili ty De ter m ination Substantial evidence supports the I J ’s conc lusion that “nothing [Petiti oners] have sa id can be re lied on as beingtruth.” JA at 51. I ndeed, the rec ord is reple te with inconsistencies. Petitioners’ asylum application and the state ment they attache d to that application stated that they left Albania

on Marc h 27, 2000, and Anila testified that they had their pa ssports with them when they left. Ye t their passports indicate that they left Albania

seven months later , on October 26, 2000. This court has he ld that submiss ion of fra udulent documents to prove a centr al eleme nt of an asy lum claim “cr eate s serious doubts reg ardingthe applica nt’s overa ll credibility .” Sterkaj v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 273, 277 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). To the extent that an asylum applicant’ s identity

and whe n he or she leave s a country are rele vant to whether

he or she was the victim of perse cution and the e x tent of that per secution, the fr audulent stateme nts here a re c entra l to the asylum claim and there fore support the I J ’s dec ision under Sterkaj
.No. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 6 - Other instanc es in the re cord de monstrate that the e vidence does not “c ompel a diffe rent result” r eg ardingPetitioners’ cre dibilit y . In connec tion with the afore mentioned incident reg ardingAnila beingphy sically assaulted by

the men that had thr eate ned Petitioners’ da ug hter, the state me nt i n s up po rt

of Pe tit ion e rs ’ a sylum

a pp lic a tio n s tate d th a t “ sh e wa s h it w itha fi st i n her stomac h, and she f

ell down unconsc iously

[si c].” J A at 128. Anila likewise testified that “I had a punc h in my

stomach.” JA at 95. Howeve r, Alban did not testify that the source of Anila’s assault was a

punch; rather, he claimed that the me n shot at Anila with a re volver. Alban also testified in c onnection with this incident that his wife had a miscarr iag e, and Pe tit ion e rs ’ s tate me nt i n s up po rt of the ir a sylum a pp lic a tio n s tate s th a t th e ir do c tor tol d A nil a

“ that sh e c ou ld n ot h ave kid s any mor e .” JA at 12 8. Ho we ve r, Pe tit ion e rs late r h a d a no the r c hil d
a ft e r t he y arr ive d in

the Un ite d St a te s, y e t th e ir a sylum a pp lic a tio n o mitte d th e e xiste nc e of thi s child. This omissi on further supports the I J ’s cr edibility deter mination, as this court has held that “omissions may

form the ba sis of an adve rse c redibility deter mination, provided that they are substantially

related to the asylum claim.” Shkabari v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 324, 329 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Liti v. Gonzales , 4 11 F .3 d 6 31 , 6 38 -3 9 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5) ). Th is o mis sio n is substantially

related to the asylum claim beca use it constituted an attempt on the par t of Petitioners to embellish their persec ution claim by intensifying the sever ity

of the a ssault. Petitioners quote extensively from the Ninth Circuit, contendingthat minor inconsistencies in date s cannot for m the basis of an a dverse cre dibilit y ruling . As stated above , analy sis of the law of this cour t dictates otherw ise. Moreove r, Petitioners fail to addr ess the fa ct that the I J identified other inc onsistencies amongtheir testimony , asylum application, andNo. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 7 - state me nt i n s up po rt

of that a pp lic a tio n, a ll o f whic h und e rm ine d th e ir c re dib ili ty , in

a dd iti on to the inconsistencies in dates. Petitioners also appar ently attempt to support their cre dibilit y argument by

claiming that they provided what there w as ava ilable to corr oborate their cla ims. This si mply is not true. The I J noted, inter a lia, that (1) Petitioners did not produce either the paper s showing that they had a proprieta ry rig ht to the pharmac eutical f actor y nor the letter

threatening their daughter, e ven tho ug h A lba

n te sti fi e d th a t bo th d oc ume nts are c ur re ntl y in P e tit ion e rs ’ f

or me r h ome , a

ho me next t o which their unc le lives and to which he has ac cess; (2) Petitioners did not produce any thing f rom the prope rty

dispute, notwithstanding the f act that they

contend they

still have a lawy er who seeming ly

could cor roborate their c laim; and (3) Petitioners purpor t that Anila’s
m o th e r w a s a w i tn e s s t o th e a s s a

u l t , y e tth e y

o b t a i n e d n o c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e f

r o mh e r . T h e IJ also noted that Petitioners did not provide any rea sonable e x planation for the absenc e of suc h
e vid e nc e . A c c or din g ly , Pe tit ion e rs ’ c la im that what w a s ava ila ble to c or ro bo ra te wa s p ro vid e d is not convincing , and this lack of c orrobor ation supports denial of the pe tition. Se e Liti , 411 F.3d
a t 64 0. Th is i s e sp e c ia lly tr ue be c a us e the we ake r t

he a sylum

a pp lic ant’ s te sti mony , a s is the c a se here , the g reater the ne ed for corr oborative e vidence
. Se e Am ir , 467 F.3d at 926. Un d er th e l aw o f t h i s ci rc u i t , th e a fo re s ai d i n co n s i s t en ci es p ro v i d e m o re th an en o u gh support for the I J ’s deter

mination that Petit ioners lac ked cr edibility . The e vidence demonstrates that the cr edibility

deter mination was “supporte d by rea sonable, substantial, and pr obative
e vid e nc e on

the re c or d c on sid e re d a s a wh ole ,” and

the re c e rt a inl y

is n ot e vid e nc e that c omp e ls a differ ent re sult.No. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 8 - C. Re fuge e St at us 1. P ast P erse cution Substantial evidence supports the I J ’s deter mination that, even assumingPetitioners were
cre dible, they

wer e not the victims of past per secution bec ause a ny mistreatment they

suffe red was not a r esult of a political dispute, but rathe r wa s a re sult of the “private dispute about pr op e rt y .” JA at 34 . Ind e e d, the fa c t st a te me nt o f P e tit ion e rs ’ o wn br ie f s up po rt s th is conclusion. Pe tit ion e rs state that f

oll ow ingthe fi rs t c ourt

a pp e ara nc e in c onne c tio n w iththe pr op e rt y dispute, “Pustina’s body

g uards thre atene d [Alban] to stay awa y from Court,” a

nd beca use of these thre ats, he missed the ne x t three c ourt dates. Petitioners’ B r. 4. Petitioners next claim that

“ [s]ho rt ly the re a ft e r, ” the ir

ho me wa s “ sp ra

y e d w ithbu lle ts f

ro m an a uto matic we a

po n, ” a g a in imp lyingthat th is a c t w a s in re ta liatio n f

or Al ba n’ s c ourt a pp e ara nc e or an atte mpt

to i nti mid a te him into not appea

ringag ain. Id. Alban also c laims that he was a rre sted and be aten a

nd that he

“ kn e w that th is w a s y e t ano the r atte mpt to i nti mid a te him

be c a us e his ne xt Court

date wa s le ss than 2 wee ks awa

y .” Id. Finally , the incident in which Alba n and Anila’ s daug hter wa s threatened a

nd Anila was a ssaulted occ urre d just before Alban’s c ourt date of J anuar y 12, 2000. The I J acc ording ly

proper ly conclude d that this was not evidence supporting Petitioners’ ref ug ee status, as it did not arise from pe rsec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of per secution on ac count of
ra c e , r e lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up , o r p oli tic a l op ini on . 8 U. S.C. § 1101(a) (42). 2. F uture P erse cutionNo. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 9 - The I J conclude d that even if Petitioners were cre dible and esta blished past perse cution, a fundame ntal chang e in circ umstances ha s occur red in Alba

nia so that they

would not be entitled to a re buttable pre sumption of future per secution. The I J cited extensively the United States Depa rtment of State Country

Report for A lbania, author ed in Fe bruar y 2004, noting, inter

alia, that in the last y ear

there wer e no political killings, no re ports of politically motivated disappea ranc es, no re ports of political prisoners, a nd under toda

y ’s circ umstances, “ very

few people will have cre dible claims to perse cution.” JA at 38-40. Acc ording ly , the I J conclude d that the re cord doe s not refle ct that the De mocratic Party , of which A lban claimed to be a
m e mb e r , i s b e i n g p e r s e c u t e d i nA l b an i a

t o d ay. Pe tit ion e rs e sse nti a lly

c la im that th e State De pa rtme nt r e po rt

is i nc or re c t, c a lli ngit “hig hly suspect.” T hey

also contend that the United States brushes a side human rig hts violations in o rd e r t o h ave g oo d r e latio ns wi th c ountr ie s su c h a s A lba nia . F ina lly , Pe tit ion e rs se le c tiv e ly quote the re port’s statements that Alba nia’s “huma

n rig hts recor d rema ined poor in some ar eas,” that “ po lic e oc c a sio na lly

arb itr ari ly

arr e ste d a

nd de ta ine d p e rs on s, ” and

that c or ru pti on e xiste d in the leg al profe ssion. Such claims will not prevent a f inding by this court that the I J ’s conc lusion is s upported by substantial evidence . First, this court has he ld that such repor ts “are g ener ally

the best sourc e of inf or matio n o n c on dit ion s in

fo re ig n n a tio ns ,” and

the re fo re , “ the I J’s r e lia

nc e on the se re po rt s is supportable.” Mu lla i v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F.3d 635, 639 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Second, Petitioners make
no a lle g a tio n th a t th e y

wo uld be su bje c t to the sma ll p oc ke ts o f a bu se sti ll p re se nt i n A lba

nia
a c c or din g to t

he State De pa

rtme nt r e po rt . A c c or din g ly , n oth ingin t he re c or d n or

in P e tit ion e rs ’No. 06-3006

Dashi v. Gonzales

- 10 - b r i e f l e a d s th i s c o urt

t o c o n c l u d e th a tth a tth e e v i d e n c e c o mp e l s a d i f f e r e n tr e s u l t , an d

th e IJ
c o r r e c t l y d e n i e d

P e t i t i o n e r s ’ a s yl u ma

p p l i c a t i o no nth e g r o un d s th a t“ th e y h av e f a i l e d m i s e r a b l y” in demonstrating past or future perse cution. D. Pet i ti o n er s ’ R ema i n i n g Cl a i ms Petitioners’ claim of withholding of re moval contains the same fac tors as an a sylum application, althoug h the forme r cla im requires a highe r proba

bility of per secution. CatellanoCha c on v . I

NS , 3 41 F .3 d 5 33 , 5 45 , 5 52 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) . A c c or din g ly , b e c a us e Pe tit ion e rs ’ asylum application fails, so must this other c laim. See Namo , 401 F.3d at 456-57 (fa ilure to meet the asylum standard pre cludes e ligibility for withholding of re moval). And for many of the
re a so ns state d a

bo ve , a s w e ll a s th e fa c t th a t Pe tit ion e rs have no t se pa rate ly purs ue d th e ir Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e Cla im, we a lso re

je c t th a t c la im. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the pa nel AF FI RMS t he orde rs of the B I A.