2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-6-2004 

# B itr a j 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 ocke t N o . 03-1523

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at 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 va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" B itr a j v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 252. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/2521 

### NOT PRECED ENTIAL UNITED S TATES COUR T OF APPEAL S FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 03-1523 ORBEL IN M. BITR A,J

Petitioner
v. JOHN ASHCROF T, Attorney General of the United States , Respondent On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals ( No. A76 582 864 )

Submitted un der L.A.R. 3 4.1 Septem ber 24, 2004 Before: McKee , Aldisert

and Greenberg , Circuit Judges . ( Filed Oct

ober 6, 2004 )

OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISE RT, Circuit

Judge .2

Petitioner Ob erlin M. B itraj seeks review of a final ord er of rem oval by the Bo ard of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA” or “Board”) affirming without opinion an I mmigrati on Judge’s ( “IJ’s ”) denia l of Bitraj’ s appli cati ons for asy lum, withholding of removal and protect ion under t

he Convention Agains t Torture (“CAT”). We must decide whether: ( 1) the BIA’s affi rmance without opinion of t

he IJ opi nion comports with the requirement s of due process ; (2) substant ial e vidence suppor

ts the IJ’s denial of Bitra j’s applications for asylum withh olding of re mov al; and ( 3) this court lack s jurisdiction to review Bitraj’s
new claim s of in effe ctive a ssistanc e of c oun sel and eligibility for a djustm ent of status, in light of his fai lure t o exhaust hi s adminis trative remedi es on thi s iss ue. Because we write onl y for the part ies who are fami liar

with the f

acts and t

he adm inistr ative pro cee din gs, w e w ill disc uss onl y the le gal is sue s pre sen ted. I. We lack juri sdiction to review Bitr aj’s clai m that he has suffered from prior inef fec tiven ess o f co uns el be cau se h e ha s ne ver raise d th at iss ue w ith th e B oar d. See I.N.A . § 242 (b) (20 03), 8 U.S .C § 1 252 (b) (20 03); Abdul Rahmn v Ashcroft , 330 F.3d 587, 594 ( 3d Cir. 2003) . Further, we la ck juri sdiction to review Bitr aj’s demand that his cas e be remanded to t he Board so that

his re quest for

adjustment of status can be consider ed. Bit

raj has file d a motion t o reopen with t he Board that

is cur rentl y pendi ng
an d the re fo re th at

is su e i s n otri pe fo r r ev ie w.3 II. This cou rt has recently held that the B oard’s affirm ance w ithout opinion p rocedure
com por ts w ith th e req uire me nts o f du e pr oce ss. Dia v. Ashcroft , 353 F.3d 228, 241-242 (3d Cir . 200 3). III. We review the IJ ’s deci sion under the subst antial evide nce standard. Subst antia l evidence i s lacki ng only in thos e cases where t he peti tioner

can establis h that t

he evidence of record was “s o compelli ng that no reasonable fact fi nder could [ have] fai l[ed] to find” in h is fa vor . INS v. Elia s-Zacari as 502 U.S . 478, 4 81 n .1 (19 92). A dver se cred ibility dete rmin ation s, su ch a s this cas e, are rev iew ed f or su bsta ntial evid enc e. Gao v. Ashcroft , 299 F .3d 266, 27 2 (3d C ir. 2002). An asylum app lican t bea rs the bur den of p rov ing eligi bility fo r asylu m. 8 C.F .R. § 120 8.13( a) (20 03); see also Gao , 299 F .3d at 2 72. In orde r for a n asylum applic ant to demonstrate that

he is a r efugee, t

he appli cant must present s pecifi c facts demonstrating that he suffered past persecuti on or has a well-founded fear of future persecution because of o ne of the ca tegorie s prote cted b y the statute . 8 U .S.C. § 110 1(a)(4 2)(a); see also Elias- Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 482-483. To demonstrat e a well- founded fear of per secuti on, the asylum applic ant m ust esta blish th at he h as a g enuin e fea r, and th at a rea sona ble per son in h is circ um stan ces wo uld fea r pe rsec utio n if r etur ned to h is na tive c oun try. See El na ge r v . I NS 930 F.2d 784, 786 ( 9th Cir. 1991 ); 8 C.F.R. § 1 208.13(b )(2)(i)(B).4

To qualifyfor withhol ding of removal , the asy lum appli cant bear s the bur den of demonstrating that

his “l ife or freedom would be threatened [in hi s country] because of [his] race, reli gion, national ity , membershi p in a soci al group, or poli tica l opini on.” I.N.A . § 241 (b)(3), 8 U.S .C. § 1 231 (b)(3); 8 C.F .R. § 1 208 .16(b ); see g enera lly INS v. Stev ic , 467 U.S. 407, 424, 430 (1984) . This requires a showing of a “cl ear probabi lit y” of futu re p erse cutio n, id. , that “it is more l ikely

than not” that t

he ali en would be persec uted bec aus e of one of th e qu alifyin g gr oun ds, see 8 C .F.R. § 120 8.16( b); Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. at 449- 50. This i s more stringent t han the well -founded fear standar d for asylum . Id. Thus, an al ien who fail s to show a well -founded fear of persecution will , by def initio n, fa il to sh ow a cle ar p rob abili ty of a thre at to l ife o r fre edo m. Al H arbi v. INS , 242 F.3d 882 , 888- 889 (9th Cir. 2001 ). Withholdi ng of removal or deportat ion under 8 C. F.R. sect

ion 208.16( c)(4) (2001) pro vid es p rotection unde r the CAT. Under the regulations, an applicant for withholding of removal under the CAT bears the burden of proof to “establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). IV. The record amply

supports the immigr ation j udge's determi nation t hat Bit raj fa iled to est ablis h that he had a well- founded fear of fut ure pers ecuti on. The immigration j udge concluded that while Bitraj' s family suffered past persecution under the communist regime, fundamental c hanges in t he country

conditi ons in Albani a that occurred wit

h the5

collapse of the c ommunist regi me undermined Bitraj' s clai m of a well-founded fe ar of futu re p erse cutio n on acc oun t of h is de mo crati c, an ti-co mm uni st po litical belie fs. In th is reg ard , the I J relie d on the D epa rtme nt o f St ate (" DO S") cou ntry re por ts, a DO S ge neral p rofile o f asylum claim s and a letter fro m D OS ' Off ice of Co untry R epor ts and As ylum Af fair s sp ecif ically a ddr essin g B itraj's c laim s, ( see R. at 197- 2 21, 275), in dete rmin ing that B itraj w as n ot cr edib le, ( see id. at 37-5 1). Sp ecifica lly, the DO S rep orts ind icate d th at the 199 8 de mo nstra tion s in S kho dra we re n ot p eac efu l, bu t rath er v iolen t. Mo st critically , the letter from D OS ' Office of Cou ntry Reports and Asylum A ffairs indica tes that m emb ers of the A lbania n arm y, who are ch osen to go over seas to participate in NA TO training exercises, are g enerally in good stand ing with the military and are bei ng groomed for future lea dershi p. Indeed, Bitraj himself testi fied that he was promised over seas travel and scholar ships i n return for his outst anding service i n March 199 7 fo r prote cting h is military aca dem y from lo oters. T he letter f urther states tha t wh ile members of the mil itar

y can fa ce discipline f

or desertion, the offi ce was not aware that members of the m ilit ary were being punished for their poli tical bel iefs. It wa s entirely pro per for the I J to a cco rd c ons ider able we igh t to th e fin din gs o f D epa rtme nt o f St ate. Cf. Sevoian v. Ashcroft , 290 F.3d 166, 176 (3d Cir. 2002) (ci ting Kaz laus ka s v . I NS , 46 F.3d 902, 9 06 (9t

h Cir. 1995) ( stati ng that cou ntry c ondit ion pr ofil es dev elop ed by the U. S. State Department ar e "' the most appropriate and perhaps t he best r esource'for information6

on political situations in forei gn nations ") (quoting Roj as v. INS , 937 F.2 d 18 6, 19 0 n.l (5th C ir. 1991 )); Dob ro tav. INS , 195 F .3d 97 0 (7th Cir. 19 99) (g enera l chan ges in
coun try conditio ns sh ow n by D epartm ent of State re ports w ere su fficien t to sup port a finding of

no well-founde d fear of future pers ecuti on). BecauseBitraj 's testi mony
co nf lic ted w ith th e D O S' f in di ng s, s ub sta nt ial ev id en ce su pp or ts t he im m ig ra tio n j ud ge 's adverse credibil ity

finding. In ad di ti on, th e I J d et er mi ne d tha t B it ra j wa s n otcr ed ib le be ca us e o f h is own misrepr esentat

ions re garding hi s clai m that he was faci ng future pe rsecution thr ough trum ped up e spio nag e ch arg es b eca use of h is de mo crati c be liefs . Specifi call y, Bitraj wrote in hi s asy lum appli cati on affidavi t that he and his fe llow cadet s did not obey t he order t o report

to Skhodra because theywere not "command tr oops." I n his t esti mony before the IJ, he changed his story to indi cate that he di d not wish t o assis t in put ting down the rebel lion bec ause he bel ieved that the demonstrators were peacef ul and unarmed. The IJfound his t esti mony incredible because of the inconsi stenci es between his writ ten st atements and oral testi mony, a nd the impl ausibi lit y of hi s story that imm ediate ly after bein g disc iplined for d isobe ying the S kho dra o rders, h e w as sele cted to par ticip ate in the N AT O o ver sea s train ing pro gra m. In determining that Bit raj' s account was not credi ble, the IJ weighed the Department of State report that t he Skhodra rebel lionwas indeed viol ent, (R. at 275), and t

hat members of t

he Albanian mil itar

y who are s ent
ove rsea s are gen erall y in go od s tand ing . Thus, the record ampl y suppor ts the IJ’s decisi on In ad dition, B itraj has f ailed to establ ish that it

is more l ikely

than not t

hat he would be t ortur ed if re moved to Albania. * * * * * We have considered a ll of t he arguments a dvanced by the part ies and conc lude that no f urth er d iscu ssio n is n ece ssar y. The petition for r eview will be denied.

7