The Honor able John R. Gibs on, Circuit J udg e of the United States Court of Appea ls for the * Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 06a0866n.06 Filed: Nove mber 29, 2006 No. 05-4454 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

BEH AR SAL I KO et a l., P e ti ti one r s,

v. AL BERTO G ONZ AL ES, Attorney Ge ne ra l of

the Un ite d St a te s, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION FOR REVI EW OF A N ORDER OF THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

O P I N I O N

Be for e : M OORE, R OG ER S, a nd G IBSO N, Ci r c uitJudg e s. * KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circuit Judge. Petitioners petition for review of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ ( “B I A”) aff irmance of an immig ration judg e’s (“I J ”) de termination that Petitioners are not en t i tled to asy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, or humanitaria n asylum. After consideringeac h of Petitioners’ cla ims, we co n cl u d e that the B I A’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence , and we there fore DENY the petition. I. BACKG ROUND Peti ti o n e r s a r e a f

a mi ly c o n s is ti n g o f a mo th e r , f a th e r , a n d tw o c h il dr e n ( c o ll e c ti v e ly , “the Sa lik os ” ), a ll o f w ho m w e re bo rn in a nd are c iti zen s o f A lba

nia

. I n Apr il 2 00 1, Pe tit ion e r I nd ri ta Saliko (“I ndrita”) and her two children, Petit ioners Kristina Saliko (“Kristina” ) and A nx his SalikoThe I NS was abolished e ffe ctive Mar ch 2003 by the Homeland Sec urity

Act, Pub. L . No. 1 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codifie d at 6 U.S .C. §§ 101 et seq.), a nd its responsibilit ies wer e assig ned to the Depa

rtment of Homela

nd Security

(“D HS”), 6 U.S.C. § 251. Petitioners initially applied for asylum on August 20, 2002, but — for rea sons unknown — 2 the ir pe tit ion s we re re tur

ne d to the m una dju dic a te d. Th e y re a pp lie d o n A ug us t 29 , 2 00 2, a nd it i s this second g roup of a

pplications that is at issue in this case . 2 (“A nx his”), lef

t Albania and tr avele d illega lly to Gre ece , wher e P etitioner Behar Saliko (“B ehar ”), I nd ri ta ’s hu sb a nd a nd the fathe r of Kr ist ina a nd An xhis, joi ne d th e m in July 20 01 . N e a rl y

a mon th later, the family

left Gre ece and travel ed t h rough Spain, Mexico, and Canada befor e ente ring the United States on September 1, 2001. The Salikos filed applications for asylum with the I mmigration a nd Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) on Aug ust 29, 2002. The I NS reque sted a hear ing befor e an I J , alleg ing that the Salikos 1 2

wer e re movable bec ause the y had entered the United S tates without being admitted by the Attorney Gene ral, in violation of the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a )(6) (A)( i). Be h ar w a s th e le a d r e s p o n d e n t in th e I J p r o c e e d in g , a t w h ic h B e h a r a n d I n dr it a te stified about Be har’ s membership in Albania’ s Democr atic Party (“D P”) and the resulting perse cution of the fa mil y by a g e nts of the Soc ia lis t Part

y (“ SP” ) g ov e rn me nt. Be har te stified that, from 1990 to 1993, he wa s an ac tive member of t h e DP ’s district “runningcommittee,” whic h was re sponsible for org anizing the par ty and re cruiting members. He left politics in 1994, upon becoming a police of fice r, but rejoined the DP in March 1998, a fter the SP came to power

and fired hi m beca

use of his past poli tical associations. Beha r stated that he was beate n by police at a

n October 1998 DP r ally ; w hile walking home from his f ather ’s ranc h later that month; in November 1999, during a ce lebration of the anniver sary of the DP’s for

mation; in October 2000, afte r taking part in a D P demonstrati o n ; an d i n J u n e 2001, as he attempted to ensur e the3

a c c ur a te c ounti ng of vo te s ca st in an e le c tio n. He a lso te sti fi e d tha t mas ke d men c a me to h is h ou se looking f or him in Dece mber 1999 but did not find him at home and that he was t h re at ened by unknown per sons in September 2000. I ndrita testified that she was pre sent when B ehar ’s father broug ht him home after the second assault by police in October 1998, wher eupon she and her mother-in-la w (not the villag e nurse , as B e ha r h a d c la ime d) tr e a te d h is i nju ri e s. She a lso re c a lle d th e vis it f ro m th e ma sk e d me n w ho c a me looking f or B ehar when he was not at home, but she testified that the incident occ urre d in Dece mber 1998 (not a y ear

later, a s Be har ha d stated). F inally , I ndrita stated that she had be en pre sent when Be har c ame home afte r beingbeate n by police duringthe J une 2001 ele ction, but, when re minded of her previous testimony that she and the children had left Albania in A pril 2001 and never

returne d,

s h e w a s u n a

b l e t o e x p l a i n t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c y. I n addition to the te stimony of Be har a nd I ndrita, the Salikos offe red doc umentary evidenc e to the eff ect that B ehar

was a member of the DP, that he was f ired fr om his job as a police off icer be c a us e of his po lit ic a l le a nin g s, that hi s un cle wa s ma rt y re d f or su pp or tin g the de moc ratic movement, and that B ehar was hospitalized after the J une 2001 beating. The I J noted, howeve r, that none of the se docume nts was authentica ted and that many

wer e handw ritten and untra nslated. Moreove r, one of t he documents purported to show that B ehar had bee n in the hospital on J une 25, 2 0 0 1 , a d a t e o n w h i c h , B e h a r

i n s i s t e d i n h i s t e s t i m o n y, h e w a s i n p o l i c e c u s t o dy. At the c on c lus ion

of the he a ri ng , th e I J den ie d th e Sa lik os ’ a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , wi thh old ingof rem ova l, a nd humanit a ri a n a sylum , f

ind ingthat th e inc on sis te nc ie s amon g the ir written applications and oral testimony prec luded a finding that they wer e cr edible and, f

urther, that they had not shown any

rea son for their f

ail u re t o apply

for a sy lum in any

of the thre e sig natory4

countries to the United N ations Protocol on Refug ees (Gre ece , Spain, a nd Canada ) throug h which they trave led on their wa

y to the United States. The I J also found that the a pplications for a sy lum

wer e fr ivolous, render ing the Salikos perma nently ineligible for asy lum in the United States. The Salikos ti mely

appea led to the B I A, which r ever sed the I J ’s finding of fr ivolousness and sever al of her factua l finding s but sustained the denial of relief , finding that the I J ’s adve rse c redibility finding was supporte d by

substantial evidence in the rec ord. The Salikos then pe ti t i o n ed t h is court for revie w. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review We h a ve re c e ntl y

ob se rv e d th a t: Two distinct standards g overn our revie w of remova l decisions by the B I A. We g e ne ra lly

re vie w q ue sti on s o f l a w d e no vo, bu t defer to t he B I A’ s r e a so na

ble interpre t at i o n s of the I

NA. On the othe r hand, the fac tual finding s of the I J are re vie we d und e r t

he su bs tanti a l- e vid e nc e standard , a nd we wi ll n ot r e ve rs e tho se finding s unless any

rea sonabl e adjudicator would be c ompelled to conclude to the c o n t r a r y. Singh v. Gonzales , 451 F.3d 400, 403 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (interna l quotation marks omitted). B. T he De nia l of A sy lum The de cision whether

or not to g rant a sy lum lies wi t h i n t h e d i scre tion of the Attorney Gene ral. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(A)

. “Disposition of an application for asylum require s a two-step inquiry : first whether

t h e petiti oner is a ‘ ref

ug ee’ within the meaning of the statute, a nd second, whether the petitioner mer its a favor able exercise of discre tion by the Attorney

Gene ral.” Pe rk

ov ic

v . I NS , 3 3 F. 3 d

6 1 5 , 6 2 0 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g I NS v . Ca r d o z a - F o n s eca , 4 8 0 U. S

. 421, 428 n.5 (1987))

.5

A r e fu g e e is any person who is outside any country of such person’ s nationality or, in the case of a pe rs on havin g no natio na lity , is out sid e a ny c ountr y in w hic h s uc h p e rs on

la st habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to re turn to, and is unable a nd unwilling to ava il hims elf o r h er self of the protec tion of, that country beca use of perse cution o r 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 political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A). “Unde r the I

NA, an a pplicant for asylum be ars the burden of demonstrating that ‘per secution is a rea sonable possibili ty

should he be re turned to his country of orig in.’” Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 6 3 1 , 6 3 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Pe rk ov ic , 33 F.3d at 62 0 (interna l quotation omit ted)). T he

a pp lic ant m

us t “ pr e se nt sp e c ifi c fac ts through obje ctive evide nce if possible, or throug h his or her own per suasive, cr edible testimony , showing actua l persec ution or detailing some other g ood rea son to f ear perse cution on one of the specifie d g rounds.” Y ou k ha nn a v . I NS , 749 F.2d 360, 362 ( 6th Cir. 1984) (e mphasis in origina l; internal quotation marks omitted). I n th is c a se , th e Sa lik os have a tte mpt e d to dem on str a te the ir re fu g e e status — an d thus the ir

e lig ibi lity fo r a sylum — by sh ow ing pa st pe rs e c uti on . Th e B I A f ound , h ow e ve r, that th e I J’s a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

findi n g wa s p roperly

based upon discr epanc ies among Be har’ s asylum application and Be har’ s a n d I n d r it a ’ s te s timony

conce rning three instances of alleg ed past pe rsec ution. First, Be har’ s application stated that he was be aten by police a t a political protest on September 20, 1998, but Be h ar t es t i fi edb ef

o re t h e IJ t h at t h e b ea t i n g o cc u rr edo n Oc t o b er 2 0 , 1 9 9 8

. S ec o n d , al t h o u gh B e ha r’s applic a tio n in dic a te d th a t ma sk e d me n v isi te d h is h ome and de mand e d to kn owhis wher eabout s s o m eti me in Dec ember 2000, he testified on dire ct examination that this incident

oc c ur re d in De c e mbe r 19 99 , the n c ha ng e d the date ba c k to 20 00 duri ngc ro ss- e xami natio n. I nd ri ta6

later testified that the event occur red in D ece mber 1998. Finally , Be har testified on d i rec t

e xami na tio n th a t he wa s det a ine d by po lic e a ft e r a de mon str a tio n on O c tob e r 1 6, 20 00 and take n to

a po lic e statio n w he re he wa s o nc e a g a in be a te n. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, ho we ve r, he state d that th is be a tin g did

no t ta ke pla c e a t the po lic e statio n bu t wa s ins te a d a dmi nis te re d on the wa y the re . Th is internally contra dictory

testimony

further conflicts with Be har’ s written asy lum application, which states that he wa s arr ested not o n Oc t o b er 1 6, 2000 but rather on October

24, 2000. Moreove r,

c on tr ary to h is s ta te me nt dur ing c ro ss- e xami natio n tha t the de te nti on la ste d o nly

a bo ut o ne ho ur , h is

a pp lic a tio n a sse rt s th a t he wa s h e ld f or fo rt y -e ig ht h ours . The Salikos argue in their brief that the discrepa ncies relied upon by the I J and the B I A ar e

“ min or ” and “ ins ub sta

nti a l” a nd do no t “ g o to the he a rt of ” the ir c la im o f p e rs e c uti on , a

nd the y c ite

case law to the ef

fec t that an adver se cre dibilit y deter mination c annot be based solely upon an alien’ s failure to include in his asy lum application eac h and every detail s upporting his claim. None of the

case s cited by

the Salikos, however , supports their claim. In Liti , 41 1 F.3 d at 63 8- 39 ; Pergega v

. Gonzales , 41 7 F .3 d 62 3, 62 8- 29 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Mec e v. G onzales , 415 F.3d 562, 572- 75 (6th Cir. 2005); and Se c aid

a- Ro sa le s v . I NS , 3 31 F .3 d 29 7, 30 9- 12 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ), the B I A w a s in c or re c t in finding that the applica

nts’ evide n ce co ntained sig nificant interna l inconsistencies. I n Vasha v. Gonzales , 410 F.3d 863, 870 ( 6th Cir. 2005), we a ctually reje cted the pe titioner’s cha lleng e to the B I A’ s f ind ingtha

t th e a pp lic a nt’ s te sti mony

wa s in c on sis te nt in wa

y s that w e nt t o th e he a rt

of his

c la im. The Salikos next cite various case s involving cla ims of persec ution specifica lly involving the Al banian g overnme nt, but each of these c ases is also distinguishable

. See Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F .3 d 2 75 , 2 85 -8 6 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 5) (i nv olv ingan a pp e a l of the I J’s f

ind ingthat un dis pu te d e ve nts did7

no t r ise to t

he le ve l of

pe rs e c uti on ); Gjerazi v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 800, 809- 13 (7th Cir. 2006) (re versing an I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination based upon an a pplicant’ s fa i lure to provide

corr oborating documents, whe re “ [t ]he I J ag ree d that Gjera z i’s acc ount of his alleg ed political pe r s e c ut i o n

w a s p l a u s i b l e a n d s u p p o r t e d b y ind e pe nd e nt s ta te de pa

rtme nt r e po rt s” and

that “ [Gje ra zi]

and his fa mil y [ha d] te sti fi e d c on sis te ntl y wi th t he ir wr itt en app li catio ns fo r A sylum ” ); Shtaro v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 711, 715- 17 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding t h at the I J err ed in finding that the applicant’ s testimony was undermined by a non-c ontradictory

State Depa

rtment country

profile, by the a pp lic ant’ s f

a ilure to t e ll h e r e mpl oy e r t hat sh e ha d b e e n r a

pe d, a nd by do c ume nts the c on te nts of wh ic h the I J f

ound , fo r un sp e c if

ie d re a so ns , to be imp la

us ibl e ); Caushi v. Attorney Gen. , 436 F.3d 22 0, 22 6- 30 (3 d Ci r. 20 06 ) ( ho ldi ngtha t th e I J er re d in fi nd ingthe a

pp lic a nt’ s e vid e nc e inc re dib le without considering the applica nt’s explanations for omissions and without s pecif y ing w hich

ans we rs g ive n b y

the a pp lic a nt’ s si ste r u

nd e rm ine d h e r c re dib ili ty ); Halo v. Gonzales , 419 F.3d 15, 18 (1 st C ir . 2 00 5) (r e ve rs inga de c isi on in w hic h th e B I A a ssume d that the a pp lic a nt w a s c re dib le bu t t h e n “ w r o t e , w i t h o u t e xp l a n a t i o n , t h a t h e h a d n o t m a d e a s h o w i n g o f p e r s e c u t i o n s u f f i c i e n tto ju st if y re lie f” ); Voci v. G onzales , 4 0 9 F

. 3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ T h e B I A a c c e p te d Voci’s te sti mony a s c re dib le , a

nd y e t de te rm ine d th a t V oc i ha d n ot s ho wn th a t he e xpe ri e nc e d p a st perse cution in Albania. The B I A’s opinion does not explain how the BIA re ache d this result.”). The instant case dif

fer s from tho s e ci t ed ab o v e in that (1) the I J in this case spec ified which inconsistencies unde rlay her adverse cre dibilit y finding ; (2) the Salikos do not dispute the exis tence of tho se inc on sis te nc ie s; a

nd (3 ) t he inc on sis te nc ie s c on c e r

n t h e ve ry e ve nts a lle g e d to c on sti tut e pa st perse cution.8

The Salikos also argue that, “in the context of the rampant sc ore- settling, police corr uption and abuse , and the lac k of leg al re dress in Albania , it is clear that the Salikos have a re asonable fea r of future perse cution beca use of Mr. Saliko’s political opinion and ac tiviti es.” Pet ’r s Br . at 21. “[T] he existence of a

g ener alized or random possibility of per s ec u tion in [ an applica nt’s] native country ” is, howeve r, “g ener ally insufficient to establish perse cution.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 750 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 06) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). That is pre cisely why an applicant’ s cre dibilit y

matters: bec ause his or he r testimony is o ft en the only

link between suc h g ener alized information and the likelihood of individual perse cution. The Salikos’ t estimony is internally contra dictory

and inconsistent with their applications for

a sylum wi th re sp e c t to a lle g atio ns that a re c e ntr a l to t he ir c la ims of pe rs e c uti on . Wh ile it i s p os sib le t h a tana p p l i c a n tf o r a s yl u m m i g h t f

o r g e to r m i s r e m e m b e r

t h e d a t e s o f

a f e w i n c i d e n t s a m o n g m a n y, t h e B IA c o r

r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t , i n t h i s c a s e , “ t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s a r e t o o p e r v a s i v e t o i g n o r e . ” B IA Dec ision at 2. Moreover , Petitioners’ willingne ss to o ff er s p ec i fic dates, both in their written applications and at the hear ing, itself c asts doubt o n t h ei r cr edibi lity in light of their obvious

un c e rt a int y a bo ut t ho se date s. Ac c or din g ly , w e c on c lud e tha t th e B I A’ s d e nia l of

a sylum is supported by

substantial evidence

. C. The Denial of

Withhol din g of Rem oval I n Almuhtaseb , w e he ld t

hat: There are tw o p r o v is io n s u n d e r w h ic h a n a li e n c a n r e qu e s t w it h h o ld in g of remova l: § 241(b)(3) of

the I NA, 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 231(b)( 3), or the CAT [Convention Ag ain s t T o rture]. The I

NA withholding of

remova l provision . . . prohibit[ s] t he de po rt a tio n o r r e mov a l of a ny on e wh os e lif

e or fr e e do m wo uld be thr e a te ne d in his or her home country

on acc ount of one of the same five g rounds necessar y for a sy lum (ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a par ticular socia l gr oup, or political opinion). To preva il on a petition for withholding of remova l unde r the I

NA, an a lienBoth pa rties to this case h av e t reated Petitioners’ cla ims for asylum and for humanitar ian 3 asylum as discrete from one anothe r. That a pproac h is consistent with our opinion in Liti , 411 F.3d at 636-39, 641-42, a

nd we a dopt it here. 9 must show that there is a c lear probability , that is, that it is more likely than not, that she would be subject to pe rsec ution on the basis of one of these five g rou n d s wer e s h e r e m o v e d

f r o m t h i s c o u n t r

y. 4 5 3 F. 3 d at 749 (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). When “substantial evidenc e supports the Boa

rd’s deter mination that [an a lien] is ineligible for a sy lum, it t here fore follows that he ca nnot satisfy

the more string ent standar d for withholding of depor tation [ under the I

NA].” Kol iad a v . I NS , 259 F.3d 482, 489 (6th Cir. 2001), qu ote d in Selami v. Gonzale s , 423 F.3d 621, 627 n.2 (6th Cir. 2005). Simi larly , “[t] he burde n of proof is on the applicant f

or withholding of

remova l under [the CAT] t o establish that it is more li kely than not that he or she would be torture d if remove d to the pr op os e d co un t r

y o f r e m o v a l

. ” 8 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0 8

. 1 6 ( c ) ( 2 )

. A n a p p l i c a n tw h o c a n n o te s t a b l i sh elig ibilit y for a sy lum “also ca

nnot meet the heig htened r equire ment s for r elief unde r [the] CAT,” Liti , 411 F.3d at 641. We therefor e re ject the Salikos’ re quest for r elief f rom the B I A’s d en i al of withholding of r emoval under the I NA and/or

the CAT. D. The De nia l of H um ani ta r ian As ylu m Petitioners also reque st humanitarian asy lum, which may be g rante d . . ., in the exercise of the dec ision-maker’ s discretion, if: (A) The a

pplicant has de monstrated compe lling re asons for b e in g unwilling or un a ble to re tur

n to the c ountr

y a ri sin g ou t of the se ve ri ty of

. . . p a st perse cution; or (B ) The applicant has established that there is a rea sonable possibility that h e o r s h e m a y s u f

f e r o t h e r s e r i o u s h a r

m u p o n r e m o v a l t o t h a tc o u n t r y. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii). 310

Section 1208.13(b)( 1) require s that an applicant “esta blish that he or she has s u ff ere d perse cution in the past in the applica nt’s country

of national i t y . ” At oral a rg ument, the Salikos

conce ded t h at past perse cution is a prec ondition of a g rant of huma nitarian a sy lum under § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii). Se e als o In re Chen , 20 I . & N . Dec . 16, 19 (B I A 1989) (inter n al citation omitted) (“[T]he favora

ble exercise of discretion is w arr anted for humanitarian rea sons even if the re is lit tle likelihood of future pe rsec ution. . . . V i ct i ms of past perse cution should in some cases be treated as re fug ees or

asylees e ven whe n the likelihood of future perse cution may not be g reat . . . .” ). B e c a us e the y have no t e sta

bli sh e d p a st p e rs e c uti on , the re fo re , the Sa lik os are pla inl y no t e nti tle d to the extraordinar

y relief contemplated by

§ 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii). III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY revie w of the B I A’s orde r.11

ROGERS, J., concurr ing. I concur in the result and in the majority opinion ex cept f

or Part D. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii) does not cr eate a sepa rate claim for r elief f

ro m re m o v al called “humanitar ian asylum” that is disti nct from “ asylum.” Rather, this provision constitutes part of the regulatory

scheme for de termining whether an alien shou l d be g rante d asylum. The regulations pr ov ide g e ne ra lly

that so me on e c la imi ng re fu g e e status ba se d on pa st pe rs e c uti on c a n n e ve rt

he le ss be denie d asylum either bec ause of chang ed countr

y conditions e liminating a we ll-founded f ear of future pe rsec ution or the possibili ty of i nterna l reloc ation within the country allowing the applica

nt to avoid future pe rsec ution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)( i)(A)

. Section 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii) provides that in case s of par

ticularly sever e prior pe rsec ution, or where the applica nt would fac e “othe r ser ious harm ” if h e w e r e f

o r c e d to r e tu

r n to h is c o u n tr

y , c h a n g e d c o u n tr

y c o n d it io n s o r th e p o s s ib ility of

re loc a tio n ma

y no t pr e c lud e a

g ra nt o f a sylum . 8 C. F.R

. § 1 20 8. 13 (b )( 1) (i ii) ; see also Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F .3 d 631 , 641 -4 2 (6t h Cir. 20 05 ); Rreshpja v. Gonzales , 420 F.3d 551, 556 (6th Cir. 2005). B eca

use 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (1) (i ii) does not even c ome into play wher e ther e is not

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e of

pr ior pe rs e c uti on

in t he fi rs t pl a c e , it

wa s n ot i nc umb e nt o n the B I A t o a dd re ss the applica

bility of the re g ulation.