The Honor able William O. Ber telsman, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n 1 District of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0827n.06 F iled: Novem ber 13, 2006 No. 05-3941 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

VE ND IM BIRBILI , ) ) P etitioner , ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VI EW v. ) F RO M A D EC ISI ON OF THE ) BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N ) AP P EA LS AL BER TO R . G ON Z AL ES, ) ) Respondent. )

Be fore : MARTI

N and COOK , Circuit J udg es; BE RTEL SMAN, District J udg e. 1

P ER CURIAM . The pe titioner, Vendim Bir bili, seeks revie w of a

final orde r of r emoval enter ed by

the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals which a ffirme d without opinion an imm igr ation judge ’s dec ision denying B irbili’s application for a sylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture. F or the re asons discussed be low, we DENY the petition for r eview. B ir bil i is a nativ e and

c iti zen of Al ba nia . H e e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s in 20 00 a s a vis ito r a nd wa s p la c e d in

re mov a l pr oc e e din g s a ft e r o ve rs tayinghis vis a . In Augus t 20 00 , B ir bil i2

filed an a pplication reque sting re lief fr om removal in the for m of asylum, withholdi ng of
remova l, and re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture. I n November

2000, Birbili filed a supplemental application for the same relief . Birbili claims that he w as subjecte d to politi cal pe rs e c uti on

in A lba nia ba se d o n h is m e mbe rs hip in t he De moc ra

tic Part y and the Pol iti c a lly Persec uted Association in L azare t, Albania. A m er i t s h ea ri n g wa s h el d i nDe tro i t , M i ch i gan i nJ an u ary 2 0 0 4
. Fo l l o wi n g th i s h ea ri n g, the immigration judge de nied all forms of r elief r equeste d, finding that Birbili’s testimony lacke d
cre dibilit y ; that he had f

ailed to demonstrate that he suff ere d past perse cution; and that eve n assuming he could show past per secution, country conditions in Albania had c hang ed such that he could not show a

well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution. Birbili timely appea led to the B I A, which af firmed without opinion. When the BIA af

firms the immigration judge w ithout opini on, this Court reviews the immigration judge’ s decision as the f inal administrative orde r. Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004) (c itation omit ted). We conclude that the immigration judge’ s fac tual deter minations reg ardingBirbili’s claims of past a

nd future pe rsec ution are suppor ted by “re asonable , substantial, and probative evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a whole.” Lumaj v. Gonzales , N o . 0 5
- 3 3 5 0 , 2 0 0 6 WL 2547466, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 6, 2006) (c itation omit ted). While perha ps harshly

worde d, the immigration judge’ s assessment of B irbili’s testimony reg ardingthe alleg ed eve nts of October 18 , 1 99 9, wa s a c c ur a te ins of ar a s B ir bil i’ s te sti mony

a bo ut t hat da y wa s in de e d inte rn a lly inconsistent. Birbili first testified that a se cre t police offic er thre atene d him and then let him go. Up on fu rt he r e xami natio n, ho we ve r, B ir bil i te sti fi e d th a t th e po lic e of fi c e r t oo k h im i nto3

de te nti on and he ld h im f

or se ve ra l da

y s. This inconsistency

is not irreleva

nt or minor, but instead g oes to the “he art” of B irbili’s asylum claim. Yu , 364 F.3d a t 703-04 (citation omitted). B irbili testified to only three or four alleg ed incidents of phy sical abuse by the g overnme nt, and he pr ovided no cor roborative testimony or docume ntation that these incidents in fa ct occ urre d. Thus, this fundamental inconsistency

reg ardingone of those inc idents “under mines a cla im of perse cution.” Patel v. Gonzales , 126 Fe d. Appx. 283, 291 (6th C ir. 2005). Cf. Vucaj v. Gonzales , 150 Fe d. Appx. 444, 45 0- 51 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) (gra nti ngpe tit ion

fo r a sylum

by nativ e Al ba

nia ns wh e re inc on sis te nc ie s in te sti mony we re min or

and did no t r e late to b a sis fo r a lle g e d f e ar o f p e rs e c uti on ; a

pp lic ant a lso provided c orrobor ative testimony). Birbili g ave no r eason f

or the a bove inconsistency

other than a

failure of memory , which did not persuade the immigration judge, who noted that an inability to rec all such an important fac t was not cre dible g iven that there wer e so fe w alleg ed ar rests. Of c ourse, the immig ration jud g e wa s in

the be st p os iti on

to o bs e rv e B ir

bil i’ s d e me ano r a s h e te sti fi e d, and thi s w e ig hs in favor of def ere nce be ing a ffor ded his adve rse c redibility deter mination. Patel , 126 Fe d. Appx. at 290. Whil e other

inconsistencies noted by

the immigration judge a

re le ss centra l to Birbili’s claim, the immigr ation judge also found important the fa ct that B irbili provided no corr oborative testimony , despite the fa ct that seve ral fe llow democrats who all alleg edly experience d discrimination at the hands of the Socialist gove rnment af ter g raduation now reside in the United States. We conclude that the immigration judge pr operly considere d the abse nce of such
corr oborative e vidence
. Se e Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 379, 382 ( 6th Cir. 2004)

.4

W e a l s o co n cl u d e t h at , gi v en Bi rb i l i ’s t es t i m o n y atth e h ea ri n g, th e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge
rea sonably

conclude d that Birbili’s primar y motive in leaving Albania wa s economic, r ather than based on political pe rsec ution. Th e imm ig ratio n ju dg e a lso c on c lud e d th a t e ve n if on e a c c e pte d B ir

bil i’ s a c c ount o f t

he se alleg ed incidents, they

would not rise to the level of perse cution for pur

poses of a n asylum claim. We conclude that the rec ord does not compe l a contra ry result. See B ocova v . Gonzales , 412 F.3d 257, 263- 64 (1st Cir. 2005). Sub sta nti a l e vid e nc e a lso su

pp or ts t he imm igratio n ju dg e ’s fi nd ingthat e ve n if B ir bil i suffe red pa st persec ution, chang ed countr y conditions rebut the pre sumption of a well-founde d fe ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

in A lba nia . T he imm ig ratio n ju dg e did no t e rr in r e lyingon

the State Depa rtment repor

ts in thi s reg ard. See Lumaj v. Gonzales , No. 05-3350, 2006 WL2547466, at *2 (6 th C ir . Se pt. 6, 20 06 ); Gjelaj v. Gonzales , No. 05-3204, 2006 WL1307986, at *5 (6th Cir. May 11, 2006). There fore , this case a

ppear s to fall into the categ ory of asy lum cases in which the bases for the immig ration judg e’s a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination are not ove rwhe lming, but which
are not so deficient a s to compel a c ontrary result, as is re quired unde r the a pplicable standa

rd of revie w. See, e .g., Bah v. Gonzales , No. 04-3454, 2006 WL2571393, at *4 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 20 06 ); Yu , 364 F.3d at 704. Finally , beca

use the burde ns for withholding of re moval and re lief under the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a re greater than that for cla ims of asylum, the immi g ration jud g e pr op e rl y

de nie d th os e c la ims a s w e ll. We theref ore DENY the petition for re view of the BIA’s orde r af firming the dec ision of5

the immigration judge.