NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0334n.06 No. 10-4132 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T

AURORA PL L UMAJ; KL EDI PL L UMAJ, Petitioners,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent.

______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON REVI EW FRO M T HE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

OP INION

Before: SILER, ROGERS, and WHITE , Circuit Judges. HELE NE N. WHITE , Circuit Judge. Aurora Pllum aj, a native and citizen of Al b ania, petitions for revie w of a decision of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (B I A) a ffirmingthe denial of her applications for asylum, w it hh o lding of remova l, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT). We AF FI RM the BIA’s dec ision and deny Pllum aj’s petition for r eview. I Pllum aj enter ed the United States on or around September 3, 2001, without being admitted

or parole d by an immigration office r. On Aug ust 28, 2002, Pllum aj filed an application for asylum, withholding of remova l, and CAT protec tion, asser ting that she was perse cuted in Albania on

acc ount of her pare nts’ political activities with the Democr atic Party (P D) i n Albania and her involvement with the Youth For um of the PD of Shkodra, the city wher e she and her pare nts resided.

1Pllum aj’s application also stated that following a J uly 9, 2001 protest by the Youth For um and PD at which she g ave a speec h, three men forc ed her into a car , beat her, called her a “democ rat bitch,” and drove to an aban d o n ed b u i l ding, wher e the three rape d her. On October 22, 2002, the I NS

commence d remova l proce eding s ag ainst Pll umaj and her husband, Kledi Pllumaj, filing a Notice to Appea r (NTA) and char g ing them with remova bility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (6)( A)(i) as aliens not admitted or parole d. Petit i o n ers admitted the NTA alleg ations, conce ded remova bility , and stated that they

planned to apply

for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval and CAT prote ction. Pllum aj filed a new application for asylum and withholding of remova l on Aug ust 25, 2004, and included her husband as a derivative applicant for asylum. Pllum aj, her pare nts, and her husband testified at the Dec ember 5, 2005 merits hear ing befor e the I J

. Pllum aj and her pare nts te stified to her involvement with the PD Youth For um, and her pare nts testified that they wer e active in the PD. Pllum aj and her pare nts testified that afte r the men beat and rape d Pllum aj following her speec h at

a political p ro t est, Pllum aj spent three day s in a hospital in a city thirty minutes awa y from the fa m i l y ’s re s i dence in Shkodra, and then stay ed with an uncle in a city at an hour’s distance fro m Shkodra for sever al months. Pllum aj’s pare nts testified that they strove to hide that Pllum aj had been rape d beca

use in Albania women that are rape d bring shame on their families and are sometime s killed. II On November 13, 2008, the I J issued a written decision denying Pllum aj’s applications and order ing he r re moved to A lbania. The I J found Pllum aj was ineligible for asylum be cause she did not establish t h at s h e fi led her application withi n one-y ear of her arr ival; deter mined that Pllum aj

was not cre dible, noting internal inconsistencies in her testimony , inconsistencies betwee n her and

2her mother’s testimony , as well as inconsistencies betwee n her pare nts’ testimony ; and alterna tively found that even if Pllum aj had testified cre dibly about her past perse cution, DHS demonstrated that country conditions in Albania had chang ed to such an extent that Pllum aj no l o n ger had a wellfounded fea

r of perse cution. Reg arding Pllum aj’s reque st for CAT protec tion, the I J conclude d that there was no evidenc e that she would be targ eted for torture if returne d to Albania or that any such torture would be at the hands of the Albanian g overnme nt. Petiti oners a ppeale d to the BIA. The BI A di smissed Petitioners’ appea l, ag ree ing only with the I J ’s alter n at i ve finding t hat assuming that Pllum aj was cre dible and that she established past perse cution, her presumption of a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution was rebutted by improved country

conditions in Albania: We ag ree with the I mmigration Judge that, assuming arguendo that she was cre dible and that past perse cution was established, the responde nt’s presumption of a we ll-founded f

ear has bee n rebutted by improved country conditions in Albania. See I .J

. at 13-14; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(ii); Ceraj v. Mukase y , 511 F.3d 583, 593- 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (“this court has [] re p ea t ed l y conclude d that the conditions in Albania have improved to such an extent that there is no objective basis for awellfounded fe ar of future perse cution based on political or relig ious beliefs” ) (citing , inter alia, Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F. 3 d 520, 530-31 (6th Cir. 2006)). As the [I J ] noted, DHS has the burden to show a chang e in country conditions to rebut the presumption of a well-founde d fea r of perse cution. Under the fac ts of this case , the country conditions repor

ts relied on by t h e [ I J ] rebut any presumption of a wellfounded fea

r of perse cution. I n addition, the most rec ent repor t issued in M arc h 2010, including descr iptions of the overw helmingly peac eful nature of the most r e c e nt n a ti o n a l e lections, further supports the finding of imp r o v e d c o u ntr y c o n d it io n s . See Depa rtment of State, Bur eau of Human Rights, Democr acy , and L abor - Albania Country Reports o n Hu m an Rights Practice s - 2009 (Mar ch 11, 2010). Ba sed on improved country conditions, the responde nt’s presumption of a w ell-founde d fea r has been rebutted, and on that basis she has failed to e stablish e ligibility for asylum and for withholding of r emoval to Albania. The responde nt states on appea l that she should be g rante d asylum as a matter of discretion on humanitarian g rounds pursuant to Matter of Chen , 20 I &N Dec

. 16 (B I A 1989); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(A)

. We disag ree . The responde nt has made a very limit ed argument o n this issue and has not delineate d any of the specific fac tors that would lead to a favor able exercise of discretion on the very 3n arrow form of relief of humanitarian asylum, and does not alleg e risk of “o t h er

serious harm.” The respondent has not met her burde n of proof on this claim. See generally Ngar u r ih v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 182, 190-91 (4th Cir. 2004); Naigzi v. Gonzales , 455 F.3d 484 ( 4th Cir. 2006) (per suasive cir cuit authority ). AR 1-4. Petitioners filed the instant petition for re view on September 15, 2010. III Where the BIA revie ws the I J ’s decision and issues a separ ate opinion, rathe r than summarily aff irming the I J ’s decision, we revie w the BI A’s decision as the final ag ency deter mination. AlGhorbani v. Ho l d

er , 5 8 5 F.3d 980, 991 (6th Cir. 2009). To the extent the BIA adopted the I J ’s

rea soning, how ever , we a lso review the I J ’s dec ision. Id. We reviewthe B I A’s leg al conc lusions de novo, but defe r to the BIA’s rea sonable interpre tations of the I NA and acc ompany

ing regulations. Shan Sheng Zhao v. Holder , 569 F.3d 238, 246, 247 ( 6th Cir. 2009). A Pllum aj’s first five issues on appea l fail to acknow ledg e that the BIA did not base its decision

on the I J ’s adver se-c redibility or untimeliness finding s, but rathe r, the BIA ag ree d only with the I J ’s alternative finding that assuming Pllum aj was cre dible and that she established past perse cution, her p resumption of a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution was rebutted by improved country conditions in Albania. See Bonilla-Morales v. Holder , 607 F.3d 1132, 1136 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that wher e the BIA analy

zes an applicant’ s a s y

lu m c laim assuming that the applicant’ s testimony was

cre dible, “[this court] will do so as well.”) , Ayy ad v. Holder , 391 F.App’ x 485, 487 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). Pllum aj’s first five issues on appea l include that the BIA violated her due proce ss rig hts by failing to conduct an independe nt evidentiar y evaluation of the I J ’s decision; that the BIA “foc used

4entirely on chang ed country conditions, instead of on the [I J ’s] g ross err ors”; and that various ruling s

of the I J wer e err oneous. Howeve r, Pllum aj cites no authority to support that the BI A must discuss

an I J ’s finding s and ruling s if the BIA ag ree s with an alternative and dispositi ve g round for denying asylum or withholding of remova l. See Djokovic v. Mukase y , 273 F. App’x 505, 511 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (de c li n in g to r e v ie w I J’ s c r e d ib ility deter mination wher e aff

irming on basis of chang ed country conditions). B As to her a sy lum and withholding of r emoval cla ims, Pllum aj has abandone d these claims by failing to challeng e the basis of the BIA’s decision – that conditions in Albania had improved to the extent that she no longe r has a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution. 1 Al l that rema ins then is Pllum aj’s challeng e to the BIA’s decision to deny humanitarian asylum. An applicant who has established past perse cution on acc ount of a qualifying g round, but who does not have a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution may nonetheless be g rante d asy lum on humanitarian g rounds under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii). The Attorney Gene ral rese rves this form of asylum for rar e instances involving the most atrocious abuse, wher e the past perse cution was so

sever e that it would be inhumane to r eturn the alien to he r native country

. See In re Chen , 20 I &N Dec

. 16, 19-20 (B I A 1989) (g ranting humanitarian as y l u m to applicant, a Chinese Christian who established that he suffe red extreme abuse, both phy sical and psy cholog ical, over ten y ear s during China’s Cultural Revolution); Ben Hamida v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 734, 740 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting

We observe that this court has noted t hat conditi ons have improved in Albania to such a n 1 extent that various asy lum applicants could not show an objective ba sis for a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution based on political or relig ious beliefs. See Ceraj v. Mukase y , 511 F.3d 583, 593 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Macotaj v. Gonzales , 424 F.3d 464, 465 (6th Cir. 2005); Mullai v. Ashcroft , 385 F.3d 635, 639 ( 6th Cir. 2004). 5that “[u] nder the rule announce d in [ Chen ], in rar e instances, an applicant may be elig ible for asylum

wher e he ‘ has suffe red unde r atrocious forms of perse cution,’ even wher e there is littl e likelihood of future perse cution.”) We revie w the BIA’s decision to deny Pllum aj humanitarian asylum for an abuse of discretion. Chieh v. Holder , 411 F. App’x 800, 805 (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished), Mbodj v. Holder , 394 F. App’ x 239, 245 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). Pllum aj argues that “eve n if country conditions have chang ed since her depar ture, she would endure g reat psy cholog i ca l h ar d s hip if she wer e to return to Albania due to the serious harm she suffe red,” and that “re turn to Albania would risk even more serious psy cholog ical harm for her and destruction of he r fa

mily relationships based upon the cultural c ontext in Albania.” Although being beate n and rape d by three men is deplora ble and likely to have long- lasting emotional and psy ch o lo g ic a l e ffe cts, we cannot conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in finding Pllum aj’s limited argument insufficient to support the e x traordina ry relief reque sted. For the fore g oing r easons, we deny Pllum aj’s petition for r eview.

6