-1- NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0424n.06 F iled: July 16, 2008 No. 07-3453 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT NERTIL MULLAJ, P etitioner -Appellant,

v. MICHAEL B. MUK

ASEY, Respondent-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE B OA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N A P P EA LS

Be for e : N OR RI S, BA TC HELD ER , a nd G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. J UL I A S MI T H GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Pe ti tione r-a ppellant Ner

til Mul laj seeks r eview of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals’ ( “B I A”) order of re moval. Mullaj argues t hat t he B I A er red by : (1) adoptingand af

firming the I mmigration J udg e’s f inding that Mullaj wa s not c redible; a nd (2) denying Mullaj’s a

pplications for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . For the followin g rea sons, we deny Mullaj’s petition for revie w. I. Ner til Mul laj (“Mullaj ”) is a native a nd citizen of Albania. On D ece mber 12, 2001, he entered t h e United States at the Miami I nternational Airport. He w as 17 y ear s old at his tim e of entry

. Upon entering the Unit ed S tates, Mul laj was questioned under oath by an im migr ation office r.-2-

Duri ngthe qu e sti on ing, Mu ll aj st a te d th a t he ha d tw o s ist e rs and on e br oth e r w ho we re bo th perma nent residents of t he United States. He also stated, “I came [t o the United States] because I was in dang er in my

country and I came here to work and reu n i te with my family .” In explaining ho w h e arr ive d in

the Un ite d St a te s, Mu lla j st a te d, “ Ile ft

Al ba nia tw o mo nt hs ago. Went to Amsterdam, one night and two months in the Domi nican Republic in a hotel. Then Gua daloupe [sic] fo r 3 da y s in a ho te l and Por

t- a u- Pr inc e jus t tr ans it. ” Mu lla j a lso state d th a t he ha d n o d oc ume nts wi th h im an d tha t some pe op le he lpe d h im t o tr a ve l f ro m A lba nia to G ua de lou

pe by pr ov idi nghim wi th a No rw e g ian pa ssp or

t, wh ic h wa s take n a

wa y fr om h im b e fo re he bo ard e d th e a ir pla ne in P ortau-Prince . Mullaj also e x plained that his “ fathe r is a democ rat a nd the [S ]ocialist [ P] arty

is in power now so my

family has bee n hara ssed.” Mullaj subsequently

filed for asylum, withholdi ng of remova l a nd protec tion unde r the CAT. I n th e a pp lic a tio n, Mu lla

j de sc ri be d h is e xpe ri e nc e s in Al ba nia a s f oll ow s: I am s e e k in g p o li ti c a l a s y lum i nth e U n it e d St a te s b e c a

u s e Ih a v e b e e np e r s e c u te d, threatened a

nd beate n d u e to m y

political beliefs and my involvement with [ the Democr atic Party (“D P”)]. On April 2001, Iwas be aten while pa rticipating in a DP de mon str a tio n in

K[o ]rc a . O n M ay

21 , 2 001, I was dis tr ibutin g DP p ro pa g and a in K[o] rca . Socialist pa

rty ag ents and members, br utally attacke d me. They

threatened to kill m e if I

continued spre ading democ ra t ic propa g anda. T he next day , Iwas beate n while I was g iving a spee ch to my fellow students in the school. In J une 2001, social ist poli ce be at me bec ause I was pa ssing out DP mater ials in front of voting booth no.3 in K[ o]rca. I

was a lso arre sted the same day and beaten while in police c us tod y . In th e be g inn i[n]gof

Au g us t, t he po lic e c a me to my

ho me tie d me t o a

c ha ir an d b e a t me w h il e o th e r s w e r e s e ar c h in g f o r to [s ic ] th e y o u th

f o r m D P m in u te s [s ic ]. My house wa s torn apar

t and a lot of obj ects were broken. I n late September , Iwas kid na pp e d o n my wa

y to a me e tin g in K [o]r c a . I

wa s b e a te n o nc e a g a in b e c a us e my beliefs we re a g ainst the socialist party and g overnme nt in Albania. Mu lla j a lso de sc ri be d h is i nv olv e me nt i n th e De moc ratic Part y a s f oll ow s: Iam a membe r of DP. . . . I was pe rsonally

involved in many

activities that DP org anized not only

in Bllisht, but K[o] rca and other suburbs too. Iwas a lso eng ag ed-3-

in public relations with DP, espec ially during the elections of 2001. Ialso distributed pamph le ts a

nd oth e r m a te ri a ls f

or DP a nd its me mbe rs . Ba sed on these f

acts, Mullaj conc luded, “I f I return to Albania, I

would be killed by

[t he] curre nt socialist gove rnment.” Duri nghis or a l te sti mony , Mu lla j re c ounte d the de ta ils of se ve ra l inc ide nts wh e re he c la ims t o h a v e b e e n s u

b j e c t e d t o t h r e a t s an d v i o l e n c e b e c a u s e o f h i s m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e D e m o c r a t i c P a rt y: (1 ) i n April of 2001, Mullaj participated in a De mocratic Party y outh demonstration wher e police beat the p ar t i ci p an t s ; (2) on Ma y 21, 2001, Mullaj was threatened a nd beate n by

members of

the Soc ia lis t Part

y fo r d istri bu tin g De moc ratic Part y fl ie rs ; ( 3) on

May 22 , 2 00 1, Mu lla

j w a s b e a te n in his sc ho ol i n B e lic h ( ph on e tic sp e lli ng ) b y tw o So c ia lis t Part

y bo dyg u a r d s a f t e r h old inga

De moc ratic Party meeting ; ( 4) in J une of 2001, Mullaj wa s beate n by Socialist P arty

policemen in a r ecr eational park loc ated in Korca for passing out Democr atic P arty fliers and then arrested and taken to a police station for additional beatings; (5) in August of 2001, five police office rs broke into Mull aj’s house, beat him and r ansac ked the house ; (6) in September of 2001, Mullaj was stopped and f orce d into a police ca r while on his way

to a Democ ratic Par

ty y outh meeting ; told that he would be killed if he continued to par

ticipate in such a ctivities; and then thrown fr om the car , fra cturing his wrist. D u r i n g c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , a n u m b e r o f i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s ar o s e i nM u l l a j ’ s o v e r a l l t e s t i m o n y. First, despite his c ontention that he demonstrated, distributed f liers and or g anized meeting s for the De moc ratic Part

y , Mu lla j w a s una ble to i de nti fy

the name s o f a

ny of his su pe ri or s at th e De moc ratic Party , save the head of

the entire org anization; thi s was pec uliar g iven that it would stand to reason that, b e inga

low -l e ve l me mbe r o f t

he De moc ra

tic Part y , M ull a j w ou ld p re suma

bly have ha d to

rec eive or ders f

rom someone within the org anization.I n his asy lum application, Mullaj did not respond to t h e q uestion asking when he last left 1 h i s h o m e c o u n t r

y. -4- Also, Mullaj’s testimony befor e the immigration judge ( “I J ”) r eg ardingthe J une 2001 incident diffe red f

rom his description of th e ev en t in his asy lum application. I n his asy lum application, Mullaj stated that the June 2001 incident occ urre d in Korca while he was “passingout DP materials in front of vot ing booth no.3.” Howe ver, unde r cr oss-examination, he stated that the incident occ urre d in a re cre ational par k and that he did not re call any details abou t the upcoming elec tion. Fur thermore, M u l l aj, upon entering the United States, told the immigration officer that he had not b ee n arrested. How ever , his asy lum application clea rly states that he wa s arr ested by the police. Ac cordingto Mullaj, he did not include his arre st beca use he thought t he question re fer red to criminal arr ests and not politically motivated arres t s ; i n ad dition, he was neve r cha rg ed by the police. Mu lla

j a lso fa ile d to me nti on

any of the inc ide nts me nti on e d in hi s oral tes timon y a t hi s ini tia l in te rv ie w wi th an imm ig ratio n o ff ic e r; ins te a d, Mu lla

j si mpl y state d th a t he wa s in

da ng e r i n A l b an i a an d t h a th e c a m e t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o w o r

k an d r e u n i t e w i t h h i s f

a m i l y. M u l l aj ’s cl ai m s re gar d i n g t h e S ep t e m b e r i n ci d en tal s o ca m e u n d er h ea v y qu es t i o n i n g. Acc ording to Mullaj’s asy lum application, t h e S eptember incident occ urre d in “late Septembe r.” Ho we ve r, Mu lla

j’ s pa ssp or

t c on ta ine d sta

mps c le arl y ind ic a tin g that he ha d le ft Al ba nia on Au g us t 24, 2001 and entered the Dominican R epublic on September 5, 2001. Mullaj, in response, cla imed that the stamps wer e forg ed by two individuals who helped him with his travel arr ang ements and that in f a c t he le ft Al ba nia in O c tob e r of 20 01

. Mu lla j pro vid e d no ev ide nc e to sub sta nti a te thi s c la im 1-5-

besides the f

irst names of these my sterious individuals. Mullaj’s mother also testified be for e t h e I J

. Although she stated that she sa w Mullaj’s br uis e s a nd oth e r e ff e c ts o f t he tr e a tme nt h e a lle g e dly re c e ive d at th e han ds of

the Soc ia lis t Part

y po lic e , s he a dmi tte d th a t sh e ne ve r s aw a ny of the a c tua l in c ide nts de sc ri be d b y Mu lla j. I n summarizing her

conclusion t hat M ullaj was not “cr edible in the l east,” the I J noted all the above inc onsistencies and omissions. I n doing so, the I J emphasized that the contra diction betwee n Mu lla j’ s pa ssp or

t and his a lle g a tio ns re g ard ing an inc ide nt in la te Se pte mbe r 20 07 “com ple te ly undermined” Mullaj’s cre dibilit y . Havingfound him not c redible, the I J conclude d that Mullaj had

no t satis fi e d his bur de n of e sta bli sh inge lig ibi lity

fo r t he re lie f o f a sylum , w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l, or withholding unde r the CAT. I n a per curiam decision dated Marc h 14, 2007, the B I A adopted a nd aff irmed the de cision of the I J . I n d o i n g s o , t h e BIA noted that it did not find the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination clea rly err oneous. Mullaj now appe als. I I

. “We re view d e n o v o the leg al deter minations made by

the I J or B I A, but revie w fa ctual finding s under the def

ere ntial ‘substantial evidenc e’ standa rd.” Zoarab v. Mukase

y , 524 F.3d 777, 780 (6th Cir. 2008). “Where the BIA adopts the I J ’s re asoning , the cour t review s the I J ’s dec ision direc tly to determine w hether

the dec ision of the BIA should be u p h el d o n appea l.” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 282- 83 (6th Cir. 2005). The I J ’s finding s of fa ct ar e “c onclusive unless any

rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude t o the contrary .” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). Thus, the I J ’s deter

mination should be upheld unless evidenc e “not only supports a contra

ry conclusion, but indeed c om pe ls it.” Ou da v . I

NS , 324 F.3d 445, 451 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal c itation-6-

omitted and emphasis in orig inal). III

. “While an adve rse cre dibilit y finding is affor ded substantial def ere nce, the finding must be supported by

specific rea sons.” Sy lla v . I NS , 3 8 8 F

. 3 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 6 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )

. M o r e o v e r , “ [a ]n adver se cr edibility

finding must be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt’s claim. They ‘ca nnot be base d on an irre levant inconsistency .’” Id

. (q u o t i n g Da ne sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 355 F.3d 615, 619 n.2 (6th Cir. 2004)). Thus, “[i] f discrepa ncies ‘ca nnot be viewe d as attempts by the applica

nt to enhanc e his claims of pe rsec ution, they have no bear ing on cre dibilit y .’” Id. (q u o t i n g Daneshv ar , 3 5 5 F. 3 d at 6 2 3 (q u o t i n g Sh ah v . I NS , 22 0 F .3 d 10 52 , 1068 (9t h C ir . 2 000) )) ; see also Bah v

. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 637, 641- 42 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholding adver se credibility deter minations where the di scre pancie s involved the alien’s alleg ed invol vement in a political org anization and treatment by the g overnme nt of Guinea ). The I J found discrepa

ncies in Mullaj’s story that clea rly went to the hear

t of the applica

nt’s

c la im. Mo st n ota

bly , th e I J found that the fa c t that Mu lla j’ s p a ssp or

t in dic a te d h e wa s n ot i n A lba nia

w h e nt h e a l l e g e d

S e p t e mb e r

i n c i d e n tt o o k

p l a c e “ c o mp l e t e l y u n d e r m i n e d ” M u l l a

j ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y. F ur the rm or e , M ull a

j’ s r e sp on se – th a t he did no t know anyth in g ab ou t th e sta mps and that hi s pa ssp or t wa s for g e d by ind ivi du a ls wh o aid e d him in his tra ve ls – simpl y se e me d too i nc re dib le to the I J , espec ial l y given that the passpor t had bee n in Mullaj’s possession since he ar rived in the Un ite d St a te s. I n addition, Mullaj’s claims about his participation in the Democ ratic Par ty wer e under

mined by his inabilit y

to provide the names of any of his superiors in t h e De m o cratic Party . And, the inc on sis te nc ie s in

Mu lla j’ s st or y – mo st s pe c if

ic a lly , th e loc a tio n o f the Ap ri l 20 01 inc ide nt – a lso-7-

serve d as an a dditional indication that Mull aj’s story was simply

not cre dible. Tog ether these inconsistencies and memory lapses all under

mined key

elements of Mullaj’s cla im s of pe rs e c uti on . In tu rn , th e se fa c ts l e a ve no do ub t th a t th e I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination was supported by substantial evidence

.

I V. “The I J , actingfor the A ttorney Gene ral, ha s discreti on to gr ant asylum to any alien who qualifies as a

‘re fug ee.’ ” Yu v . A sh c ro ft , 364 F.3d 7 0 0 , 7 0 2 (6 th Cir. 2004) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) , (b)) . Under

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42)( A), ‘re fug ee’ is defined a s any alien “w ho is unable or unwilling to re turn to” her home country

“bec ause of

perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of p e r s e c u ti o n o n a c c o u n t o f r a c e , r e li g io n , n a ti o n a li ty , me mb e r s h ip in a p arti c u la r s o c ia l gr oup, or p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” Un d e r

t h i s f r a m e w o r k , anIJ ’ s a s yl u m d e t e r

m i n at i o n “ i n v o l v e s a

t w o - s t e p i n qu i r

y: (1) whe ther the applicant qualifies a s a ‘r efug ee’ as def ined in § 1101(a) (42)( A), a nd (2) whe ther the applicant merits a fa

vorable exercise of

discretion by

the [I J ].” Yu , 3 6 4 F. 3 d at 7 0 2 (q u o t i n g Ouda , 324 F.3d at 451). Althoug h an asy lum applicant bea

rs the burde n to prove that he or she is a r efug ee, the applica

nt’s uncorr oborate d testimony – if cre dible – may be sufficie nt to sustain thi s burden. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)

. Howeve r, “[w]hil e an a p p li c ant could theor etically establish this burden of proof throug h corr oboration as oppose d to her own c redible te stimony , an adve r s e c r e d ib il it y d e te r mi n a tion is ge nera lly

fata l to an application for asylum, withholdi ng of re mov al , o r C AT relief .” Paul v. Mukase y , 20 08 U. S. App . L EX I S 96 22 , at *1 5 ( 6th Cir . M ay 2, 20 08 ); se e als o Y

osd v. Muk

asey , 514 F

. 3 d 7 4 , 8 0 ( 1 s tC i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t“ ana d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i f

s u p p o rt e d b y a specific , cog ent, and supporta ble explanation, is ge nera lly fata l to an asy lum applicant’ s claim for relief ”) ( internal quotation marks a nd citations omitt ed))

.-8-

I n a d d it io n , “ th e A tt o r

n e y G e n e r a l ma

y n o t r e mo v e an a li e n to a c o u n tr y if the Attorney Gene ral de cides that the alien’s l ife or fre edom would be threatene d in that country beca use of the alien’s r ace , relig ion, na

tionality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U. S

. C

. § 1231(b)( 3)(A) . To show this, an applica nt “must demonstrate that ther e is a c lear pr ob a bil ity that he wo uld

be su bje c t to pe rs e c uti on ” if

he or s he were to r e tur

n to his or

he r h ome country

. Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 1998)

. Although an as y l u m appli cant be ars the burd e n to pr ov e that he or sh e is a re fu g e e , th e a pp lic ant’ s unc or

ro bo rate d te sti mony

– if

c re dib le – ma

y be su ff ic ie nt t o s us ta in t

his burd e n. 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b ). B e c a us e thi s b ur de n is highe r than the bur den re quired to demonstrate asylum eligibility , “an a lien who fa ils to qualify for asylum nece ssarily does not qualify for withholding of re moval.” Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005) (c i t i n g Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 38 8 F .3 d 94 1, 95 5 (6 th Ci r. 2 004) ); se e als o Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 391. I n d e nyingMu lla

j’ s p e tit ion , th e I J fir st n ote d th a t, b e c a us e of the a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty det er m i nation, Mullaj had failed to satisfy his evidentiary

burden to de monstrate elig ibilit y for asylum and withholding of r emoval. The I J also consider ed the mer its of Mullaj’s claim, assuming arg u en do that the incidents alleg ed did in fac t occur . The I J conclude d, howeve r, that, eve n assuming Mullaj wa s cre dible, his petition could not be g rante d. I n doing so, the I J ref ere nced the fo llo wi ngfa c tor s: ( 1) a c c or din g to the c ountr y c on dit ion

inf or ma tio n p ro vid e d b y

the State Depa rtment, conditions in Alba nia have signific antly

chang ed; (2) Mullaj’s story lacke d “sig nificant overt a cts” of pe rsec ution ; an d (3) the f act that Mullaj left Alba

nia for B ulga

ria prior to his final depar ture fr om Albania, stay ed in B ulgari a, an d d espite havingfound saf e have n in Bulg aria , returne d to Albania.-9-

Th e I J als o w e nt o n to no te that e vid e nc e of Mu lla j’ s pa rt ic ipatio n in the De moc ra tic Part y did not ex ist and that Mullaj did not present any evidenc e – save a sca r on his chin – of pe rsec ution while in Albania. Given the fore g oing f

acts a nd fac tors, the I J corr ectly deter mined that Mullaj has simply not

satis fi e d h is b ur de n to de mon str a te that he is e lig ibl e fo r a sylum or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. V. “An a pplicant see king r elief unde r the Convention Ag ainst Torture has the burde n of proving that it is m ore likely

than not that he will be torture d if remove d to the proposed c ountry .” Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 397 ( 6th Cir. 2006)(citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2)) . “Torture” is def ined in r e le va nt p art a s: any act by which severe pain or suffering

. . . is intentionally inflicted on a pe rson for such purpose s as . . . intimidating or coerc ing him or her . . . for a ny rea son based on discrimination of any k ind, when such pa in or suffe ring is inflicted by or at the instigation of or

with the consent or a cquiesc ence of a public of ficial or othe r per son a c t i n g i nan

o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18 (a) (1). “ I n decidingwhether torture is more likely

than not to occur

up on the applicant’ s return to the c ountr y , we ‘c o nsider the possibility of future torture, including any

e vid e nc e of

pa st t or tur e inf lic te d u po n th e a pp lic ant a nd e vid e nc e that th e a

pp lic ant is no t li ke ly

to be torture d in another a

rea of the c ountry

of re moval.” Be rri , 4 6 8 F. 3 d at 3 9 8 (q u o t i n g Ali v. Reno , 237 F.3d 591, 596- 97 (6th Cir. 2001)). Gi ve n th e inc on sis te nc ie s in Mu lla j’ s st or y , h is g e ne ra l la c k o f ev ide nc e , an d th e I J’s a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

deter mination, Mull aj has not satisfied his burde n to demonstrate that torture is more likely than not to occur

if he re turns t o Albania. As a result, the I J corr ectly

denied Mullaj re lief under the CAT.-10- V I. F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w an d

a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o no f

t h e I J.