2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-24-2008 

# P a jol l a r i v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 07-1800

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . R e c omme nde d C it a t ion
" P a j o l l a r i v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 495. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/495Th e Hon orable Jose ph H. Ro driguez, Senior Distri ct Judg e, Un it ed Stat es Distri ct * Court for the Di s tr i c t

of Ne w J e r s e y , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 1 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No: 07- 1800 VA NG JUSH PA JOLL AR I, Peti ti on er v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Re s ponde nt Pe t i t i on for

Re vi e w of an Or de r

of the B o ardo f Imm ig ratio nA p p eals (No. A79- 452- 965) B ef o re: M cK E E an dG A R T H , C ircu it Ju d g es, and Rodr i gue z , Di s tr i c t

Judge * Su bm itte d p ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

May 15, 2008 ( Opi ni on fi l e d: Se pt e m

be r 24, 2008) OP I NI ON McKE E, Circ uit Jud ge. Vangjus h Pa

jol l ar i pe t i t i ons for

r e vi e w of afi na l or de r

of the Boar d of Imm ig ratio n A p p eals af

f irm in g th e d ecisio n o f

an Imm ig ratio n Ju d g e d en yin g h is2

ap p licatio n s f

o r asylu m , w ith h o ld in g o f rem o v al an drelief

u n d er th e C o n v en tio n A g ain st To rt ur e ( “ CA T” ) . Fo r

the r e a s on s that

fo l l ow , we wi l l de ny

the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w. I. In asm u ch as w e are w ritin g p rim arily f o r th e p arties w h o are f

am iliar w ith th is c a s e , we ne e d not

r e i t e r a t e the fa c t

ua l or pr oc e dur a l ba c kgr ound e xc e pt i ns ofar a s m ay be helpfu l t o o ur brie f d is cuss ion. Pajo ll ar i i s a nati ve and cit iz en of

Albania who atte m

pted to g ain ad m issio n in to th e U n itedS tates b y u sin g a f alse B elg ian p assp o rt. Pr i or t o hi s m e r i t s he ar i ng, Pa

jol l ar i offe r e d num e r ous s uppl e m e nt s t o hi s a s yl um applic at ion. On July

25 , 200 5, Pajo ll ar i a

pp eare d f or his a sylum

hear ing w it

h y et anothe r s uppl e m e nt . Thi s t i m e i t wa s an unda t e d e l e ve n pa ge , s i ngl e - s pa c e d doc um e nt pur port i ng t o s uppl e m e nt

hi s e xi s t i ng a s yl um

c l a i m . Couns e l for

DHS ar gue d tha t

the m os t r e c e nt “ s uppl e m e nt ” wa s m or e i n the nat ur e of ane w a s yl um

pe t i t i on than a supp le m ent t o the exis ti ng on e. Ho wever, the I J a gree d to con si der the supp le m ent over th e o b j ectio n . Be c aus e of the di ffe r e nc e s be twe e n Pa jol l ar i ’ s or i gi na l a s yl um

a ppl i c a t i on and the new sup plem ent, a s ho rt

re ce ss was c al le d to all ow the I J and coun se l for DH S to revie w th e sup p lem en t. H o w ev er, w h en th e h earin g resu m ed , th e tap e w as n o t ru n n in g . Th er efore, when the IJ

re sum ed re cording, the I J s umm ar iz ed her r ec olle ct ion o f w hat h adtran sp ired , in clu d in g o p en in g statem en ts b y P aj o llari’s co u n sel an dD H S co u n sel. Ne i the r party obje c t e d t o the I J ’ s s umm ary of the ope ni ng s t a t e m e nt s , a l though3

Pa jol l ar i ’ s c ouns e l s t a t e d tha t s he di d not

r e c a l l any

m e nt i on i n Pa

jol l ar i ’ s s ubm i s s i ons of a gre nade being throw n. In re spon se , the IJno te d that the grenade was m enti on ed du r i ng the c r e di bl e fe ar

i nt e rvi e w. Th e I J then summ ar iz ed a s ho rt po rt ion o f P ajollari ’s te st im on y , which was consis te nt with Pajo ll ar i’ s l at es t s up plem ent. Th e I J r ec ou nted that Pajo ll ar i’ s e xpl ana t i on of why

hi s a s yl um

s t a t e m e nt

wa s s o di ffe r e nt

fr om hi s a s yl um

a ppl i c a t i on was that Pajollari was “ no t use d to b ei ng qu es ti on ed.” AR97 -98. Th e I J fir st no ti ce d the t a pe wa s not

r unni ng whe n Pa

jol l ar i wa s a s ke d i f the a s yl um s t a t e m e nt

and the a s yl um a ppl i c a t i on we r e pr e par e d a t the s am e t i m e . At

thi s poi nt , the I J , on the r e c or d, ask edP aj o llari ab o u t th e d iscrep an cies b etw een h is asylu m ap p licatio n , an dh is cred ib le f ear in terv iew an dsup p o rtin g m aterials:

Q: Al l r i ght . Now, y our

a tt orne y want s t o know why

[the fi l i ngs ar e ] s o di ffe r e nt . The Court want s t o know why th ey ’re so d if

f eren t. A : I d o n ’t ev en u n d erstan dmy self w h y th ey ’re d if

f eren t. A R 9 9 . P aj o llari saidth at th e d o cu m en ts w ere n o t p rep aredth e sam e d ay an dth at h is atto rn ey ask edh im

to “create” a h isto ry

f o r h im self

. Id . H e saidth at h e d idn o t recall wh en he finished his s tate m ent. When qu es ti on ed abou t his girl frie nd , Pajollari sa id that he had lost a ll contac t wit h h er . In deny ing P ajollari ’s cl ai m s for re li ef, the IJfo un d that Pajollari had n ot te st ifie d cr edibly . The IJexplai ned that there were substantia l dis cr epanci es that were neverP aj o llari claim edth at a g ren ad e h adb een th ro w n th ro u g h h is w in d o w , b u t co u ld 1 n o t id en tif

y th e in d iv idu al w h o th rew it. 4 a de qua t e l y

e xpl a i ne d. The I Jfound tha t Pa jol l ar i ha d not

e s t abl i s he d am e r i t or i ous a s yl um c l a i m ba s e d on e i the r

hi s a l l e ge d a tt a c k on a c c ount of hi s m e m

be r s hi p i n the De m oc r a t i c Party , or

hi s r e l a t i ons hi p wi th Ni ko, the Soc i a l i s t Party l e a de r , be c aus e he fa i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e any gove rnm e nt

c om pl i c i ty or tha t any abus e wa s ba s e d on s om e thi ng tha t

wa s pr ot e c t e d unde r

the I NA. She furthe r

found tha t

Pa jol l ar i c oul d not estab lish an y

w ell-f o u n d edf ear o f f u tu re p ersecu tio n if

h e w ere retu rn edto A lb an ia. A cco rd in g ly , th e IJ d en iedP aj o llari all relief f ro m rem o v al. On a ppe a l t o the BI A, Pa

jol l ar i ar gue d the m e r i t s of hi s a s yl um c l a i m and a dvanc e d an ar gum e nt

tha t hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s we r e vi ol a t e d be c a us e the tr ans c r i pt

of the heari ng contai ned n um er ou s i nd is ce rnible wo rds. He al so al le ged that the IJwas bias ed base d o n the IJ ’s exchange with his counsel a bo ut the i ncident with the grenade. 1 T h e B IA ad o p tedan daf

f irm edth e IJ’s d ecisio n , an df o u n dth at th e IJ’s ad v erse cr edibil it y find ing w as no t “ cl earl y

er roneou s. ” See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(3 )(i). It also fo un d n o evidence of a du e proces s violati on by the I J. Th is peti ti on fo r r evie w fol l owe d. III. Wher e the BIA b oth ado pts t he find ings of

the I J and disc usse s s om e of the bases f o r th e IJ’s d ecisio n , w e rev iew th e d ecisio n s o f b o th th e IJ an dth e B IA . Ch en v.5

A sh cro ft , 3 7 6 F .3 d2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ). Ju d icial rev iew o f imm ig ratio n m atters is lim ited . IN

S v. V en tu ra , 537 U.S. 12 , 16-18 (200 2). The BIA’s “findings of fact ar e c onc l us i ve unl e s s any

r e a s onabl e a djudi c a t or

woul d be c om

pe l l e d t o c onc l ude t o the co n trary .” IN A § 2 4 2 (b )(4 )(B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); I NS v
. El i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U. S. 478, 483- 84 ( 1992) . Unde r thi s de fe r e nt i a l s t andar d, we wi l l not r e ve r s e the a ge nc y ’ s fi ndi ngs “ s i m

pl y be c aus e an a l t e rna t i ve fi ndi ng c oul d be s upport e d by substantia l e vidence. ” Y

a n L a n Wu v. A sh cro

ft , 3 9 3 F .3 d4 1 8 , 4 2 4 -2 5 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Inst ea d, the pet it ioner m

ust e st abli sh that

the e vidence not on ly

supp orts a c on tr ar

y co n clu sio n , b u t co m

p els it. G a o v. A sh cro

ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) ( c i t a t i on om itte d). IV . The Att orne y

Ge ne r a l m ay

not r e m ove an a l i e n t o a

c ountry i f the a l i e n’ s l i fe or fr e e dom woul d be thr e a t e ne d i n tha t c ountry on a c c ount

of the a l i e n’ s r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m

be r s hi p i n apart i c ul ar

s oc i a l gr oup, or

pol i t i c a l opi ni on . I NA § 2 4 1 (b )(3 )(A ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ); see a lso IN S v. Stevic , 467 U. S. 407, 413 ( 1984) . To be e l i gi bl e for thi s r e l i e f, the a l i e n m

us t e s t abl i s h a“ c l e ar

pr obabi l i ty

of p ersecu tio n ” o n acco u n t o f o n e o f th e f o reg o in g g ro u n d s. Stevic , 467 U. S. a t 413. The bur de n of pr oof for

e s t abl i s hi ng e l i gi bi l i ty

for wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l i s m or e s tr i nge nt th an th e b u rd en req u iredf o r asylu m . L u kw a g o v. A sh cro ft , 329 F.3d 15 7, 18 3 (3d Cir. 2002) . The c l e ar

pr obabi l i ty

s t andar d ha s no s ubje c t i ve c om pone nt . I t

r e qui r e s obje c t i ve6

e vi de nc e tha t

i t i s m or e l i ke l y

than not tha t the a l i e n wi l l be s ubje c t

t o pe r s e c ut i on upon rem o v al. See Chen v. Gon zales , 4 3 4 F .3 d2 1 2 , 2 1 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). To qu al ify

fo r CAT re li ef, an ali en m ust s ho w that i t i s m ore l ikel y than no t t

hat he/s he wo uld b e t orture d b y the gov er

nm ent of the prop osed coun tr y of re m ov al , or that th e g o v ern m en t w o u ldacq u iesce in to rtu re at th e h an d s o f o th ers. A m a n

fi v. A sh cro

ft , 32 8 F .3d 7 19 , 726 (3d C ir . 200 3); 8 C.F.R. § 1 20 8.16 (c )( 2). Torture is “an extre m e form of c r ue l and i nhum an tr e a tm e nt and doe s not

i nc l ude l e s s e r

form s of c r

ue l , i nhum an or d eg rad in g treatm en t o r p u n ish m en t th at d o n o t am o u n t to to rtu re.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a)(2 ). V. P aj o llari m ak es tw o arg u m en ts in sup p o rt o f h is p etitio n f

o r rev iew . H is f

irst arg u m en t is th at h is du e p ro cess rig h ts w ere v io latedb ecau se th e IJ “b asedh er cred ib ility de t e rm i na t i on i n l ar ge part upon s worn t e s t i m ony

tha t wa s off- the
- r e c or d be c aus e s he fa i l e d t o r e s t art

the t a pe m a c hi ne a ft e r

ar e c e s s . ” Pa

jol l ar i ’ s Br . 21. ( W e r e vi e w due p ro cess claim s de no vo . A b d u lra h a m a n v. A sh cro

ft , 330 F.3d58 7, 59 5-96 (3d C ir . 200 3)) Th e argum ent i s m er it le ss . I t i s c le ar that the a dv er se cr edibil it

y dete rm inat ion w as base d on the di s c r e panc i e s be twe e n hi s t e s t i m ony , a s yl um a ppl i c a t i on, and the e l e ve n pa ge sup p lem en t th at h e p ro du cedth e d ay o f th e h earin g an dth e f

act th at h e w as n o t ab le to explai n the disc re pancie s. Th e I J r es tate d w hat l ittl e of P ajollari ’s te st im on y had n ot been r e c or de d and s umm ar i z e d i t on the r e c or d. Si gni fi c ant l y , Pa jol l ar i ’ s c ouns e l di d not7

obje c t t o the I J ’ s s umm ary

or othe rwi s e a tt e m

pt t o c l ar i fy the r e c or d. To pr e va i l on adue proces s c hall enge to Im

m igrati on hear ing p roce du re s, an al ie n must s ho w ‘substantia l prejud ic e. ” Sing h v. Gon zales , 432 F. 3d 533, 541 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) . Pa jol l ar i s uffe r e d no substantia l pre

ju dice . P aj o llari’s seco n darg u m en t is th at th e IJ f ailedto co n sid er p o ten tially co rro b o rativ e ev id en ce. H e co n ten d s th at th e IJ p lacedp articu lar relian ce o n th e S tate Departm ent Profile of

Asylum Clai m s for Albania, prod uced in May 20 01 , r ather than th e S tate D ep artm en t’s 2 0 0 0 an d2 0 0 1 C o u n try R ep o rts f

o r A lb an ia. A cco rd in g to Pajo ll ar i, the 200 1 A sylum Prof il e c on cl ud es that

“[t]here i s vir

tual ly no evidence that in d iv idu als are targ etedf o r m istreatm en t o n p o litical g ro u n d s,” “[ t] h ere is n o p o stC o mm u n ist trad itio n o f

retrib u tio n ag ain st p o litical lead ers an df ew in stan ces th ereo f

,” an d“[ t] h e G o v ern m en t h as n eith er th e m ean s n o r th e w ill to carry o u t sy stem atic pers ec ution.” Pajollari ’s Br. 25. Ho wever, Pajo ll ar i c on te nd s that these conclusi on s are a t odds wi th the 2000 and 2001 Count ry Re port s , whi c h he c l a i m s “ c i t e num e r ous a l l e ga t i ons of vi ol e nc e and i nt i m i da t i on a t [De m oc r a t i c Party ] m e m be r s tha t oft e n we nt un invest igat ed and u np un is hed.” Id . at 2 6 . In P aj o llari’s v iew , th e A sylu m P ro f ile is not pr oof tha t

hi s c l a i m s l a c k m e r i t

and, the r e for e , the I Je rr e d i n r e l yi ng on i t i n m aki ng h er cred ib ility

f in d in g s. Ho wever, as no te d abo ve, the IJ ’s cr edibil it y dete rm inat ion res te d o n P ajollari ’s i nabi l i ty t o s a t i s fa c t or i l y

e xpl a i n s e r i ous i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n hi s t e s t i m ony , a s yl um8

applic at ion, and sup plem ent. Mo re ov er , the IJ ’s ci tati on to the 200 1 A sylum Prof il e was cond ucte d along with the I J’ s c it at ion to the Co un tr y Repo rt s and concluded that “ ther e [are] is no se ri ou s polit ic al conf li ct s between grou ps in a s y st em at ic organize d m anner an d[ th e] ev en sh o w th ere to b e a co alitio n g o v ern m en t, alth o u g h th e S o cialist P arty r e m a i ns i n powe r . ” The m i m i na l r e fe r e nc e t o the As yl um Pr ofi l e c oul d have no e ffe c t on th e IJ’s ad v erse cred ib ility d eterm in atio n . VI. Fo r a l l of the abo ve r e a s on s , we wi l l de ny the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w.