T h e H on or abl e Ja mes S. G wi n , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e N o rt her n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. -1-

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0474n.06 F iled: July 3, 2007 Nos. 06-3066 / 06-3734 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT AUREL VATA, P etitioner , v. AL BER TO R . G ON Z AL ES, A tt or ne y G e ne r al, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON RE VI EW F RO M THE BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N AP P EA LS (No. A97- 105-442)

BEFORE: SUTTO N, COOK, C ircuit Judges; and GWIN, Distric t Judge. * GWIN , District

Judge, announce d the judg ment of the c ou rt and deliver ed an opinion, in which SUTTON, J. and COOK, J ., concur red e x cept a s to Parts I I I .A.1.b. (i) - (iii). I. O V ERV I EW Petitioner Aurel Va

ta is a native a

nd citizen of Albania. On M ay 7 , 2003, Vata f iled an Application for A sy lum and Wit hholding of Removal, For m I -589, with the U.S. I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”). On June 13, 2003, the I NS serve d Va ta with a Notice to Appear , instit uting r emoval proc eeding s ag ainst him. On Dece mber 12, 2003, at a hear ing c onducted be fore I mmigration J udg e Elizabeth A. Hack er, V ata c oncede d remova bility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1)( A) in that at the time of his en try , he wa s not in possession of a valid unexpiredNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-2- imm ig ra nt v isa , re e ntr

y pe rm it, bo rd e r c ro ssi ng ide nti fi c a tio n c ard , or oth e r va lid e ntr y do c ume nt. Vata a lso a pp lie d f or re lie f i n th e fo rm

of a sylum , w ith ho ldi ng of re mov a l, re lie f purs ua nt t o A rt ic le 3 of the United N ations Convention Aga inst Torture (“ CAT”), a nd voluntary

departure. On Aug ust 31, 2004, I mmigration Judge Phili p L

. Morac e conducte d a final merits hear ing, or dere d that Vata be remove d to Albania and de nied all of the pe titioner’s applications for relief

. On September

27, 2004, Vata timely

filed a N otice of A

ppeal with the B oard of

I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A” or “B oard” ). On December 21, 2005, the B oard issued a per c uriam orde r adopting and af firming the dec ision of the I mmigration J udg e wi t h ad d i t ions. Subsequently , on Marc h 21, 2006, Vata f

iled a Motion to Reopen with the B oard. O n May 26, 2006, the B oard de nied Petitioner’s Motion to R eopen. Vata now seeks r eview of the B oard’ s Dec ember

21, 2005 decision, alleg ing that the Boa rd

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n whe n it de nie d Peti tio ne r’ s app lic a tio ns fo r as y lum , w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l, and re lief under

the CAT. Additionally , Vata se eks re view of the Boa rd’s Mar ch 21, 2006 dec ision,

a lle g ingtha

t ( 1) the B oa

rd a bu se d its dis c re tio n in d e nyingPe tit ion e r’ s Mo tio n to Re op e n g ive n h is prese n tati o n o f n e w an d mate r ia l e v id e n c e o f c h an g e d c o u n tr y c o n d it io n s in A lb an ia ; an d ( 2) the Boa rd violated Petitioner’s due proce ss r i gh t s b y ref using to hold a ne w hea ring as a r esult of Petitioner’s new a

nd materia l evidence

. For the following rea sons, we AF F IRM the ruling s of the B oard. We AF F IRM the B oard’ s denial of V ata’ s asylum application beca use Vata fa iled to establish (1) the Alba nian g overnme nt’s inability or unwillingness to pr otect him f rom perse cution; and (2) that internal re location would not be a pr actica l alternative. We also AF F IRM t h e B oard’ s denial of Vata’s applications forNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-3- withholding of r emoval and r elief unde r CAT. We also AF F IRM the B oard’ s denial of Vat a’s Mo tio n to Re op e n b e c a

us e Pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to of fe r e vid e nc e tha

t w a s b oth ma te ri a l and

un a va ila ble at the time of his f

ormer hear ing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). F inally , we f ind that the Boa

rd DI D N OT V IOL AT E Vata’ s due proc ess rig hts when it denied his Motion to Reopen.

II. F A C TUA L B ACKG ROUND AND P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY A. P e ti ti one r ’s Bac kgr ound On J une 9, 1981, the pe titioner was born in Puke, Alba nia. Vata is a

citizen of Albania a

nd holds an Albanian pa ssport. Vata le ft Albania a nd trave led t h ro u gh I t aly , Be lgium, Holland a nd Canada befor e ente ring the Un ited States at Detroit, Michig an on Oc tober 12, 2002, with a f raudule nt U.S. passport. On May 1, 2003, Vata f iled an Application for Asylum and Wit hholding of Removal with the I NS and re quested re lief pursua nt to Article 3 of the CAT on the basis of his relig ion and polit i cal opinion. On De cembe r 12, 2003, Vata filed a supplemental Application for Asylum and With ho ldi ngof

Re mov a l. On June 13 , 2 00 3, the I

NS s e rv e d V a ta

wi th a No tic e to A

pp e ar, c ha

rgin g h im w ith

re mov a bil ity purs ua nt t o 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 7( a )( 1) (A ) b e c a us e he wa s n ot i n p os se ssi on of a va lid unexpired immi g rant visa, r eentr y p er m i t , border crossing identification ca rd, or other

valid entry do c ume nt at th e tim e of his e ntr y . On De c e mbe r 12, 20 03 , at the se c on d of two ini tia l hea ri ng s, Vata

c on c e de d r e mov a

bil ity purs ua nt t o 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 7( a )( 1) (A ). He a lso a pp lie d f or a sylum , withholding of r emoval, re lief under CAT, and voluntary

depar ture. B. Re m ov al H e ar ing On Aug ust 31, 2004, I mmigration J udg e Mora ce c onduct ed a fi n al merits hear ing. T heNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-4- petitioner initially

testified about his backg round, re ligious ac tivism and political belief s. He then descr ibed two incidents of violenc e that purpor tedly motivated him to leave Albania

. Wit h r e g a

r d t o h i s p e r s o n a l b a c k g r o u n d , V a t a t e s t i f i e d t h a th e h a d

p r a c t i c e d C a tho lic ism since c hildhood. From 1992 to 1995, Vata worke d as a translator for the Sisters of Mothe r Ter esa, “spre ading the word of

God” a nd encour ag ing othe rs to join the Catholic Church. Be tween 1995 a nd 1999, Vata attended Pjeter Mushka lla, a seminar y high sch o o l i n S h koder, A lbania, that pre pare d stu de nts fo r p ri e sth oo d. Whil e a t th e se min ary , Vata a lso ta ug ht c a te c his m and

the B ibl e to r e sid e nts of the villag es ar ound Shkoder. Vata te stified that while working as a translator for the Sisters of Mothe r Ter esa a nd other Catholic pri es ts, people in the towns that he visited would express displeasure at his relig ious activism. Simi larly , Vata descr ibed how his Muslim friends “ start teasing me and just kee ping a

way f r o m m e ” w h e nt h e y d i s c o v e r e d V a t a h a d j o i n e d t h e s e m i n ar

y. Vata e ve ntu a lly

de c ide d to l eave the s e min ary . H ow e ve r, he sti ll r e ma ine d d e dic a te d to sprea ding Catholicism as a lay person. In 1 9 9 9 , Vata move d with his family to Tirana, A lbania, wher e he or g anized y outh activities and B ible classes for t he Youth Christian Center of Don B oskos until 2002. Wit h reg ard to his political opinion, Va t a s t at es i n his application for a sy lum that he has

never been a member of

a political par

ty . Howeve r, Vata claims that his fathe r bec ame a political prisoner f or seve ral y ear s as an oppone nt of the communist reg ime. L ikewise, Vata alleg es that be tw e e n 1 99 0 a

nd 19 92 , h e and

his fa mil y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a nt i c omm un ist de mon str a tio ns and

a c tiv e ly supported the Dem o cratic Party . Finally , Vata de scribes that his brother wa s the driver for theNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-5- Parl iame nt M e mbe r o f t

he De moc ratic Part

y in Puk e , an d his re la tiv e wa s a dep uty of the De moc ratic Party betwee n 1992 and 1996. The fir st instance of violence that Vata claims drove him from Albania took plac e in 1997. A tt h i s t i m e , V a t a

w a s l i v i n g i nt h e D o nB o s c o C e n t e r o f S h k o d e r , w h i l e s tu dyi n g a tt h e s e m i n a r y. Vata te stified that at appr ox imately 1:00 a.m., twenty

individuals attacked the Don B osco Center , brea king dow n the door a

nd shooting at the seminary students inside. As the attacke rs invaded the first floo r of the building , Vata a nd his associates we re f

orce d to leap out of the w indows of the

se c on d f loo r i n o rd e r t o e sc a

pe . Va ta and the oth e r o c c up ants fl e d, bu t r e tur ne d a ft e r a

fe w h ours . He testified that they

called the police when they returne d, and he was unaware of any arr ests made

as a r esult of this incident. Va t a d i d n o t include a de scription of this incident in the persona l state me nt atta c he d to his Ap pli c a tio n f or As y lum and With ho ldi ngof

Re mov a l. The sec ond in cident of violence immediately followed Vata’s par

ticipation in a meeting

commemorating the a

nniversar y of the Septembe r 1 1 , 2001 terror ist attacks ag ainst the United States. Vata te stified that immediately afte r September

11, 2001, he discussed his fe eling s of shock, fe ar an d s a dn e s s w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e , i n c l u d i n g M u s l i m s . V a t a t h e n d e s c r i b e d t h e r e s p o n s e of his Mu sli m a c qu a int anc e s. A lot of them wer e happy for what happene d. They just showing that the Ame rica , cause they

see A merica

is the terror ist, not t hem as the te rrori s t s o t h ey , they think that th a t w a s th e ri g ht t

hin g to d o in th e nam e of God and the y we re pu tti ngthe ir faith, Muslim faith with the t err orist attack so Iwas, I was not happy

to hear that and Iwa s o pp os ingthe m a ll the tim e fo r t hat. I n t h e persona l statement attac hed to his asylum application, Vata stated, “Seve ral of the m Ag ron Shabani, Arbe n Hoxha etc., threatened me to zip my mouth or Iwould pay

it with my

head.”No. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-6- On September

11, 2002, Vata a

nd his friends held a

memorial commemoration and pray er
me e tin g mark ingthe on e -y e ar a nn ive rs ary

of the te rr or ist

a tta c ks on

the Wor ld T ra de Ce nte r. Vata testified that he a

nd his friend both spoke at the meeting . He a l s o t es t i fi ed t h at a r umor beg an ci rc u l at i n g t h at h e h adi n s u l t edM u s l i m s an d t h e Isl am i c f

ai t h at t h e c o m m em o ra t i v e m ee t i n g. I n the day s immediately

fol lowing the meeting , Vata r ece ived numerous thre ateningand i n s u l t i n g p h o n e c a l l s a t h i s h o m e . O nS e p t e mb e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , V a t a

a l l e g e s t h a th e w a s a t t a c k e d b y a g roup of f our masked me n outside his apartment. Vata testified that duringthe beating his attac kers

“ we re jus t te lli ng me that that’ s wh a t y ou de se rv e to pr ote c t Ca tho lic ism

. To pr ote c t th e Am e ri c a ns . And t hat, and they

wer e thre ateningmy

life, too. We’re g onna kill y ou. We’re g onna kill y our family .” In his personal statement, Vata claimed he “g ot beaten, punc hed, kicke d and thre atene d that they wer e g oin g to kill m e for christianizing and in support of the USA ag ainst the terr orism and their her o Bin L aden.” Vata also testified t hat he could not rec og nize any of the men be cause they

wer e maske d. As a re sult of t he attack, Vata testified that he suff ere d head injurie s and wa s bleeding . After the attac k, his family

transporte d him to a near

by clinic wher e he r ece ived treatment, antibiotics and pain-re lieving dr

ug s. Vata testified that his injuries f orce d him to st ay

in bed for a

pproxi mately

one
we e k. Vata

a lso su bmi tte d into e vid e nc e an a ff ida vit fr om h is tre a tin g ph y sic ian, wh o d ia g no se d h im wi th a “ c on tus ion

of fr on ta l r e g ion

e t aku li d e se te r” and

pr e scrib ed a

tr e a tme nt o f b e d- re st,

anti bio tic s and

pa in r e lie ve rs ov e r t

he c ours e of

se ve n d ay s. Whil e re cover ing f

rom his injuries at home, Vata say s he continu ed to rec eive thre atening and insulting phone calls, stating that he dese rved wh at h ad h ap p en ed to him. I n his personalNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-7- statement, Vata claimed he was told, “‘this is that y ou deser ve af ter talking aga i n s t M u s l ims and even A merica

that y ou serve can’ t help y ou. I f y ou tell any thing to any

body we a re g oing to se nd y ou wi th t ho se pe op le of

9/1 1. ’” Al tho ug h h e a tte mpt e d to dis c ov er th e calle rs ’ i de nti tie s, Vata te sti fi e d th a t th e y

re fu se d to g ive him

the ir name s. Vata te stifie d th a t a ft e r h is w e e k o f r e c ov e ry , h e we nt t o th e po lic e statio n to fi le a re po rt
. Howeve r, the off

icer tasked with g uiding individuals to the proper l o ca t i o n at the station rebuke d Vata and tol d h im t o g o h ome . Sp e c if ic a lly , V ata

te sti fi e d, “ the y

jus t mad e jo ke at m e and jus t telling me g o home. That’s, that’s not rea l. J ust go away .” I n response to further questioning f

rom the I mmigration J udg e, Vata testified, the re ’s a lw ay s a

c op sittin g the re jus t tr

y ingto a dd

re ss you wh e re to g o s o I

sa id (indiscer nible) I had to re port this event that happene d to me a wee k ag o and he w as just laughingto me cause they just c ame to y ou and y ou’re coming here and is saying that, that people ge tting kil led. They ’re people ge tting shot and they don’t come he re to g e t, t o d o r e po rt s. No t y ou . Wh a t w e g on na do ? So jus t g o a wa y . I t’ s n ot w or

th it. Go away

and g o home. I n his pe rs on a l state me nt, Vata c la ims “ I we nt t o th e po lic e statio n to re po rt wh a t ha pp e ne d to me

and a bo ut t he p[h]o ne c a lls bu t th e y

did n’ t be lie ve me and se nd me awa y te lli ng me to s hu t up my

m o u t h

. ” B e l i e v i n g h i s l i f e w a s i nd an g e r , V a t a

d e c i d e d t o l e a v e A l b an i a . H e d e p art e d w i t h i nd a ys of the Al ba nia n a uth or iti e s’ fa ilure to r e sp on d to his c omp la int s. I n addition to testify ing, V ata submitted into evidence two article s descr ibing the killing of two Catholic priests in A lbania. Responding, the g overnme nt offer ed into evidenc e the De partment of State Country Reports on Human R ights P rac tices for Albania and the 2001 and 2004 Profiles of As y lum Cla ims and

Country Co nd iti on s c on c e rn ingAl ba nia . T he g ov e rnme nt a

rgue d th a t th e seNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-8- do c u m e n t s e s t a

b l i s h A l b an i a ’ s r e l i g i o u s t o l e r an c e an d t h a tb e l i e v e r s i na l l r e l i g i o n s m ay f r e e ly prac tice their f

aiths in that c ountry
. L ikewise, the g overnme nt claimed the r eports demonstrated that the Al ba nia n g ov e rnme nt q

uic kly a dd re sse s a ny dis c or d th a t de ve lop s amon g re lig iou s g ro up s. C. Im m igration Jud ge’s De cision On Au g us t 31, 2 00 4, I mmi g ratio n Jud g e Mo ra c e or de re d th a t V a ta be re mov e d to Al ba

nia and denied all of t he petiti oner’ s applications for r elief. I nitially , the I mmigration J udg e noted that at an e arlier

hear ing V ata c oncede d remova bility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)( 1)(A) . The I mmigration J udg e then de tailed three primary rea sons for deny ing V ata’ s application for political

a sylum . A lth ou g h f

ind ingthat Va ta ha d a subj e c tiv e fe ar of futur e pr os e c uti on , he fo un d th a t V a ta failed to e stablish an objective f ear of future perse cution beca use he presente d insufficient e vidence reg arding(1) the ide ntity of his attacke rs; (2) the motive of his atta ck er s ; and (3) the Albanian g overnme n t’ s u n w il li n g n e s s o r in a b il it y to p r o te c t h im

f r o m s u c h p e r s e c u ti o n . T h e I mm ig r a tion J udg e also brie fly

noted that Vata

never soug ht internal re location and offe red no evidenc e as to why internal re location would not be a pr actica l alternative. Th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e fo un d th a t V a ta ’s te sti mony wa s su bje c tiv e ly g e nu ine and

c re dib ly

es t ab l i s h eda s u

b j ec t i v e f ea r o f f u tu re p e r s e c u t i o ni nAl b an i a. Ho we v er , t h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge issued a “mixed cre dibilit y finding . A positive cre dibilit y finding with reg ard to the r espondent’s subjective g enuinene ss but ne g ative with reg ard to the obje ctive compone nt of his fea r.” In support of h is d e te r

mi n a ti o n th a t V a ta f

a il e d to e s ta

b li s h an o b

je c ti v e , w e ll

- f

o u n d e d f e ar of future perse cution, th e I m m i g ration Judge c ited the lack of sufficie nt detail in Vata’ s rec ollection of the September 15, 2002 attack and his fa ilure to explain h o w h i s attacke rs “would have known a boutNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-9- his Septemb er 1 1, 2002 commemora tion meeting.” The Immigration J udg e also noted a lack of backg round materia l bolster ing the plausibilit y of the attack or the motive sug g es t ed b y Va t a. I nstead, at v ar ious points t hroug hout the oral opinion, the I mmigration J udg e mentions persona l jealousy , retribution and hoolig anis m as p o s sible alternative motives for the Septembe r 15, 2002 attack. Finally , the I mmigrati o n Ju d g e f o u n d that Vata pr esente d insufficient e vidence that Albanian authorit i es re m ai n unwilling or una ble to protec t him from future pe rsec ution. The Immigration J udg e downplay ed the importanc e of V ata’ s testimony that an office r discourag ed him from filing

a re port. Rather, the I mmigration J udg e found that Vata “g ave up rathe r easily ” and “made no eff ort to go ba ck to the police or to seek prote ction from any other ty pe of secur ity units within Albania.” Simi larl y , th e I mmi g ratio n J ud g e fo un d the tw o ar tic le s re g ard ing Ca tho lic pr ie sts kil le d in A lba nia insufficient be cause the motive for the c rimes was unc lear

. I n contra st, the I mmigration Judge found that the country repor ts and human rig hts profiles sup p li e d b y th e g o v e r

n me n t s ig n if

ic an tl y w e a k e n e d

Pe ti ti o n e r ’ s c la im

f o r a s y lum. A lt

h o u g h the I mmigrat i o n J u dg e noted that “ the Country Reports in no way

should be the sole sourc e of backg round information and it should be weig hed in the context of the fac t that there mig ht be other

rea sons why

cer tain things a

re in a Country Report and certa in things are not,” the re ports sug g ested that A lba nia is re c og nize d fo r its re lig iou s tol e ra nc e and tha t a ll r e lig iou s g ro up s f

re e ly pr a c tic e the ir faith within the country . L ikewise, the Immigration J udg e found the repor ts contained “ no evidenc e to indicate any

pattern of g overnme nt mistreatment of individuals on the basis of re ligious belief .” F ina lly , th e I mm igrat io n J ud g e c ite d th e re po rt ’s fi nd ingthat “ the g ov e rnme nt h a s b e e n q uic k toNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-10- addre ss case s of discord a mong r elig ious gr oups.” For all of these r easons, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application for political asylum. Given that Vata did not meet the “we ll-founded fea r standar d” for

asylum, the I mmigration J udg e ruled that Vata nece ssarily could not meet the hig her bur den of “ clea r proba bility ” re quired fo r wi thholding of r emoval. F inally , the I mmigration J udg e rule d that relief pursuant to Article 3 of CAT wa s fore closed be caus e h e had “ no information to demonstrate that the g overnme nt acquie sced in the attack on [Vata] in September 2002.” D. BIA’s Dec ision On Se pte mbe r 2 7, 20 04 , V a ta tim e ly app eal ed the Immi g ra

tio n Jud g e ’s de nia l of

his applications for

asylum, withholding of re moval and re lief under CAT to the Boa

rd of Immigration Appea ls. On Dec ember

21, 2005, the Board issued a per curiam order a dopting a

nd aff irming the de c isi on of the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e wi th a dd iti on s. Primarily , the Board ruled that even considere d cumulatively , the t wo i ncidents of violenc e de sc ri be d by the pe tit ion e r do no t su pp or t a fi nd ing that V a ta

wa s a vic timof pa st p e rs e c uti on . With reg ard to the D on Bosc o shooting, the Boa rd noted that Vata “wa s not ha rmed . . . and he w as not sure whe ther or not the police responde d to help.” Wit h reg ard to the September 15, 2002 attack, the Boa rd empha siz ed that Vata “wa s unsure of the identity

of the c allers or

what they wanted.” The Boa rd also conclude d that “his injuries wer e not shown to be serious.” F inally , the B oard highlig hted an inconsistency betwee n Vata’ s persona l stat ement and his testimony . Wit hin his personal statement, Va ta claimed that the police did not believe him whe n he tried to r eport the September 15, 2002 incident. Howeve r, acco rd i n g t o theNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-11- Boa rd, Vata testified that the of fice r at the door of the station “told him that it wasn’t wor th reporting at that point beca

use they would not be able t o d o an y t h i n g.” The Boa

rd sug g ested that the w eek delay in filing the r eport may

have c aused the office r’s re action. Additionally , the Boa

rd noted that in lig ht of the country repor ts and human rig hts profiles

s ubmitted by

the g overnme nt, Vata pr esente d insufficient e vidence to show that Albanian a uthorities

wer e unwilling or

unable to prote ct him from future perse cu t i o n . Finally , g iven the bac kg round materia ls’ descr iption of Albania’s re ligious tolera nce, the Boa

rd upheld the Immigration J udg e’s ruling that “re location appe ars to be a rea sonable option for the responde nt.” E. Motion to Re open Subsequently , on Marc h 21, 2006, Vata f iled a Motion to Reopen with the Boa rd. In support of his motion, Vata submitted the repor t of Dr

. Be rnd F ischer, a n expert on Albania a

nd Ba lkan

a ff a ir s and a Pr of e sso r o f B a lka

n H ist or y a t th e Un ive rs ity

of I nd iana . F isc he r w ri te s: Aure l Vata ha s established that he suffe red pe rsec ution in the past. Ialso believe that on a c c ount o f h is f

a mil y ’s po lit ic a l a c tiv ism , o n a c c ount o f h is s ta tus a s a Ca tho lic a c tiv ist , and on a c c ount of the fa c t th a t he wa s th re a te ne d a nd a tta c ke d b y

ind ivi du a ls who wer e critical of hi s relig ion, if he we re to re turn to Albania, pe rsec ution in the form of a threat to his safety

is a rea sonable poss ibilit y . Albanian a uthorities are un lik e ly to b e a ble to s ig nif

ic antl y a me lio ra te that thre a t. L ikewise, F ischer w arns “ if forc ed to re turn and he has problems, he will likely rec eive no pr otection from the police , and in fa ct they may be his perse cutors.” The re port also (1) disc usses t h e rise of political-ec onomic corr uption, polit ical cr iminal org anizations, poli ce violenc e, Muslim fundamentalism, and re ligious per secution in Albania; a nd (2) say s that reloc ation is not fea sible within a small country like Albania. F inally , Fische r attac ksNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-12- the validity

of the c ountry

repor ts previously offe red into evidenc e by the g overnme nt and notes that

many o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s h a v e r e c e nt ly

iss ue d n e g a tiv e re po rt s c on c e rn ingthe Al ba nia n g ov e rnme nt. On May 26, 2006, the B oard de nied Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen, stating that Vata f ailed to d e mon str a te that “ c ur

re nt c ountr

y c on dit ion s in Alba

nia , whe n co ns ide re d in con jun c tio n w ithhis prior claim, g ive hi m an objectively rea sonable fear of persecution in Albania.” I nitially , the B oard took notice of the r eport submitted “fr om someone cla iming to be a history profe ssor.” The Boa

rd then ruled, “ Although the new e vidence prese nted by the re spondent conti n u es to show that the

c ur re nt c on dit ion s in

Al ba nia are tur bu le nt, the re sp on de nt ha s n ot a de qu a te ly de mon str a te d th a t hi s situation is apprecia

bly differ ent from the da

ng ers f ace d by all his fellow Albanians.” Finally , the Boa rd noted, “the responde nt’s claimed e x pert witness wa s last in Albania in September of 2004.” III . L EGA L S TA N D A R D S & A N A L Y SIS A. Iss ue One : W he th e r th e BIAAbu se d it s D isc r e ti on i n De nyi ng P e ti t i o n e r ’ s A p p l i c at ion s for Asylum, Withholdi ng of Rem oval, and Relief P ursuan t to CA T The standa

rds of re view g overningapplications for asyl u m , wi t h holding of

remova l, and relief under CAT are identical. Que stions of law are revie wed de novo

. Singh v. Gonzales , 451 F.3d 4 0 0 , 4 0 3 (6th Cir. 2006). Howe ver, “ administrative finding s of fa ct ar e conc lusive unless any

rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to c onclude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B)

. “The standard se t out in § 1252 codifies the substantial evidenc e standa rd pre viously

set forth by

the Supreme Court in INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 4 8 1 , 1 1 7 L

. E d . 2d 38, 112 S. Ct . 812 (1992).” T

her mija v . I

NS , 102 Fe d. Appx. 920, 921 (6th C ir. 2004). Thus, the B oard’ s deter mination that Vata was not elig ible for asy lum must be aff irmed if “suppor

ted by rea sonable,No. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-13- substantial, and probative evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a whole.” Elias-Zacarias , 5 02 U. S. at 481. L ikewise, “in order to reve rse the BIA' s fac tual deter minations, the reviewingcourt must find that the evidence not only supports a contr ary conclusion, but indeed c ompels it.” Kla witt e r v . I NS , 9 7 0 F. 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 -5 2 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ( ci t i n g Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 481). 1. Petitioner’s Application for Asy lum

a. Law Governing Applications for Asylum An alien s ee k ing a sy lum must (1) qua lify as a “ ref

ug ee” as def

ined by 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A) ; and (2 ) me ri t a fa vo ra ble e xer c ise of dis c re tio n by an immig ra tio n judg e . 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )( A) ; 8 C .F .R. § 2 08 .1 4( a ). 8 U .S. C. § 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A) de fi ne s “ re fu g e e ” a s

any pe rs on wh o is ou tsi de any

c ountr y of su c h p e rs on ' s n a tio na lity . . . and wh o is un a ble or un wi lli ng to re tur

n to, and is una

ble or un wi lli ng

to a va il h ims e lf

or he rs e lf of the prote ction of, that country beca use of pe rsec ution o r a we l l -f ounded fe ar of perse cution on acc ount of rac e, re l i gi on, nationality , membership in a pa rticular social g roup, or political opinion. L ike wi se , “ [t]he a

pp lic ant m ay

qu a lif y a s a refu gee ei ther

be c a us e he or sh e ha s su ff

e re d p a st perse cut i o n o r b ec au s e he or she has a

well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1) establishes that pa st persec ution can be dem o n s t ra ted by showing that an applica

nt has experience d “per secution in the past in the applicant' s country of nationality on
acc ount of rac e, relig ion, na tionality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion, and is unable or

unwilling to return to, or avail himself or her self of the protec tion of, that country

ow ingto s uc h p e rs e c uti on .” A v ic timof pa st pe rs e c uti on “ sh a ll a lso be pr e su me d to have a we llfounded f ear of per secution on the ba sis of the orig inal claim.” 8 C.F .R. § 208. 1 3(b)( 1). TheNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-14- g overnme nt may

rebut this presumption by showing by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that “[t]here has bee n a funda

mental chang e in circ umstances suc h that the applica nt no longe r has a

well-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution in the applicant’s country of nationality .” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (1)( i)(A) . I n the event that the g overnme nt suc cessf ully rebuts the presumption of a well-founde d fear o f f u t ure perse cution, asylum may still be g rante d if the applicant “has demonstrated c ompelling r easons f or being unwilling or una

ble to return to the country arising out of the seve rity

of the pa st persec ution.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(A)

. An applica

nt can establish a well-founded fear of future perse cution pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 20 8. 13 (b )( 2) by

e sta bli sh ingthat: (1) he o r s h e h as a fear of perse cution in his or her c ountry on acc ount of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a particular soc ial g roup, or political opinion; (2) the re is a re a so na ble po ssi bil ity

of su ff e ri ngsu c h p e rs e c uti on

if he or sh e we re to return to that c ountry ; and (3) he or she is unable or unwillin g t o re t u rn t o that country beca use of suc h fea

r. Mi kha il evi tc h v . I

NS , 1 4 6 F

. 3 d

3 8 4 , 3 8 9 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )

. L ik e w is e , “ [a ]na p p li c an t' s f

e a r of perse cution must be both subjectively g enuine a nd objectively rea sonable.” Id. Ho we ve r, “ [a] w e llfounded f

ear of per secution does not re quire the a pplicant to show that he proba bly will be perse cuted if he is deported; ‘one can c erta inly have a well-founde d fea

r of a n event ha ppening when there is less than a 50% chance of t he occurre nce taking pla ce.’ ” Pe rk ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 621 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987)). A d e ter mi nat io n tha t in te rn a l r e loc a tio n is a re a so na ble op tio n p re c lud e s f

ind inga we llfounded f ear of perse cution. “An applicant doe s not have a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution if the applicant c ould avoid persecu t i o n by reloc ating to another pa rt of the a

pplicant' s country

ofNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-15- nationality , if under a ll the circumstanc es it would be re asonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 2)(ii). In deter mining the re asonable ness of interna l relocation, adjudicators may consid er “ whether

the applica

nt would fac e other

serious har

m in the place of

sug g ested reloc ation; a

ny ong oing civil strif

e within the country ; a dminist rative, economic, or j udicial i n fr as tructure ; ge og raphic al limitations ; and social a nd cultural c onstraints, such as a g e, g ender , health, and soc ial and fa

milial ti es.” 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(b)(3)

. I n c a se s w he re pe rs e c uti on is g ov e rnme nt- sp on so re d o r the app lica nt h a s e sta

bli sh e d p a st perse cution, “it shall be pre sumed that internal r elocation would not be rea sonable, unless the Se rv ic e e sta

bli sh e s b y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that, u

nd e r a ll the c ir c ums tanc e s, it w ou ld be re a so na

ble fo r t he a pp lic ant t o r e loc a te .” 8 C. F .R. § 20 8. 13 (b)( 3) (i i) . H ow e ve r, “ [i]n c a se s in which the a

pplicant has not established pa st persec utio n , t h e ap p licant shall bea r the burde n of establishing that it would not be reasona ble for him or he r to r elocate.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 3)(i). Final l y , wi th reg ard to a

n immigration judge’ s exercise of disc retion, “the totality of the

c ir c ums tanc e s and

a c tio ns of an a lie n in

his fl ig ht f

ro m th e c ountr

y wh e re he fe ars pe rs e c uti on sh ou ld be examined in deter

mining whether a favor able e x erc ise of discre tion is warra nted.” Ma tte r o

f P ula , 19 I . & N . Dec

. 467, 473 (B I A 1987). Othe r fa ctors to be c onsidered inc lude whethe r the a pplicant p a s s e d t h r o u g h a n y o t h e r

c o u n t r i e s , t h e l e n g t h o f

t i m e t h e a

p p l i c an t r e m a i n e d i na

t h i r d c o u n t r y, wh ether the applica

nt has persona l ties to thi s country , and g ener al humanitaria n conce rns. Id. at 473-74. “[T]he danger of per secution should g ener ally outweig h all but the most eg reg ious of adver se fa ctors.” Id. at 474. b. Analysis of Petitioner’s Application for AsylumNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-16- Given that the B oard issued a p er cu ri am o rder adopting and af

firming the dec ision of the I mmigration J udg e with additions, we re view both the dec ision of the I mmigration J udg e and the additions provided by the Board as the final a dminist rative or der. See R amaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 52 0 , 5 2 7 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e I mm ig r a ti o n Ju d g e d e n ie d V a ta ’ s a p p li c a ti o n f

o r a s y lum on three primary g rounds: Vata prese nted insufficient evidenc e reg arding (1) the ide ntity of his attacke rs; (2) the motive of his attacke rs; and (3) the Albanian g overnme nt’s unwillingness or inability to protect him from su ch p er s ec u tion. The I mmigration J udg e also found that Vata ne ver soug ht internal reloc ation and off

ere d no evidenc e as to why internal relocation would not be a pr actica l alternative. F ina lly , th e B oa

rd fo un d th a t no ne of

the inj ur ie s r e po rt e d b y

the pe tit ion e r w e re se ri ou s. As we c on sid e r t

he re a so na

ble ne ss o f t

he de nia l of

Vata ’s a pp lic ati on for asylum , w e fi rs t

no te that th e I mmi g ratio n J ud g e de te rm ine d Va ta ’s te sti mony wa s su bje c tiv e ly g e nu ine and

c re dib ly

es t ab l i s h eda s u

b j ec t i v e f ea r o f f u tu re p er s ec u t i o n i n Al b an i a. Ho we v er , t h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge issued a “mixed cre dibilit y finding . A positive cre dibilit y finding with reg ard to the r espondent’s subjective g enuinene ss but neg ative with regar d t o the objective c omponent of his fea r.” F urther analy zing this ruling , it is appar ent t hat t he I mmigration J udg e never doubted the veracity of Vata’s te sti mony . Rathe r, t he I mm igratio n Jud g e fo un d th a t hi s te sti mony a lon e wa s in su ff

ic ie nt t o establish an objec tive well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. (i) I dentity

of Perse cutors We do not find Vata’ s inability to prec isely identify his attacke rs to be a r easona ble basis for de nyinghis a

pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum . 8 C.F .R

. § 208 .1 3( b) (1 ) s ta te s th a t pa st p e rs e c uti on is established whe n an applica nt has experience d “per secution in the past in the applica nt's c ountry

ofNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-17- nationality

on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membershi p i n a par ticular socia l gr oup, or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling to r eturn to, or avail himself or herse lf of the prote ction of, that country

owing to such perse cution.” Thus, unless an a ppl i ca n t ar gu es t h at he or she wa s perse cuted by

age n t s o f t h e go v ern m en t , t h e p re ci s e i d en t i fi ca t i o no f o n e’ s p er s ec u t o rs i s u n n ece ssary so long a s the applica

nt can e stablish the motive for his or her perse cution. (ii) Motive of Persec utors At the same time, V ata does have the burden to de monstrate that he was p er s ec u t ed “on

acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion.” 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 3( b) (1 ). We fi nd the I mmi g ratio n J ud g e ’s de te rm inatio n tha t Va ta fa ile d to do so unsupported by

substantial evidence

. Ad jud ic a tio n o f a sylum

a pp lic a tio ns re qu ir e s e xa

m i n a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u mst a nc e s. Pu la , 19 I

. & N. Dec

. at 473. To demonstrate past perse cution, Vata need not disprove ever y po ssi ble mot ive oth e r t

ha n th os e de lin e a te d in

8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 3( b) (1 ). I n the ins tant c a se , tw e nty individuals attacked the Don B osco Center of Shkoder whe re V ata lived. They broke dow n the door and shot at the seminar

y students at approximately 1:00 a.m. Vata a

rg ues that this severe attack on a known res i d en ce of Catholic seminaria ns could only

have be en motivated by the re ligious aff iliation of the Center’s inha bitants. The g overnme nt offer s no alternative motive for the attack. Wit h reg ard to the encounte r on September 15, 2002, the incident occ urre d immediately afte r Vata pa rt ic ipate d in a pray er me e tin g c omm e mor a tin g the on e -y e ar a nn ive rs ary

of the te rr or ist attacks a g ainst the United States. The Immigration J udg e cr edited V at a’ s t estimony that a rumor be g an c ir c ulatin g that he ha d in su lte d M us lim s and the I sla mic fa ith

. Da

y s pr ior to the a tta c k, VataNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-18- rec eived numer ous threate ning a nd insulti ng phone ca lls at his home. He was then seve rely beate n by four masked men outside his a partment. Vata cre dibly testified that during the attac k, the men told him “that’s w hat y ou deser ve to protect Catholicism. To protec t the Americ ans.” Subseque nt to t he a tta c k, he re c e ive d a dd iti onal th re a te nin g and ins ult ingph on e c a lls in w hic h in div idu a ls exclaimed “‘this is that y ou deser ve af ter talking ag ainst Muslim s and even Americ a that y ou serve can’ t help y ou. I f y ou tell any thing to any

body we a re g oing to se nd y ou with those people of 9/11.’ ” Throug hout his oral opinion, the I mmigration J udg e sug g ested persona l je alousy , retribution and hoolig anism as alter

native motives for the September 15, 2002 attack. He a lso questioned how Vata’ s attacke rs would have known about the c ommemorative meet i n g. Neither the I mmigration J u d ge n o r t h e B I A p o s edal t ern at i v e m o t i v es fo r t h e D o nBo s co s h o o t i n g. Wherea s persona l jealousy and re tribution “for re asons that ar e not clea r to t h e C o u rt ” ar e po ssi ble mot ive s f

or the Se pte mbe r 15, 20 05 a tta c k, the re is no ev ide nc e wh a tso e ve r t o s ug g e st the se
se nti me nts we re in fa c t the ba se s for Vata ’s be a tin g a t the ha nd s of fo ur ma sk e d men . Simila rl y , if Va t a h a d s i mp l y b e e nm u g g e d

o r a t t a c k e d a tr an d o m o nt h e s t r e e t , t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r h o o l i g a n i sm might be g reater. How ever , this beating occur red just day s afte r t he pray er meeting and subseque nt rumor of Vata’s disre spect for Muslims . Combined with the threats that Vata would be killed “f or christianizin g an d i n support of the USA a g ainst the terr orism and their he ro B in L aden” made befor e, duringand af

ter the attack, these circ umstances s ev er el y reduc e the possibility that mere hooliga nism was the c au s e o f t h e September 15, 2002 inc ident. Finally , the I J and B oard w ere

u n re as o n ab l e t o cl as s i fy

as h o o l i gan i s m t we n t y

ar m edm en fi ri n g u

p o nan d fo rc i b l y i n v ad i n g a known re sidence of Catholic seminaria ns at 1:00 a.m

. , c a

u s ingthe occ upants to leap out sec ond-storyNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-19- windows and fle e the a

rea . As such, we find the I mmigration J udg e’s de termination that Vata failed to de monstrate he was pe rsec uted “on account of rac e, religion, nationality , membership in a particular soc ial g roup, or political opinion” to be unre asonable

. (iii) Severity

of Perse cution I n its decision denying a sy lum, the Boa rd noted that n o n e o f the injuries re ported by the pe tit ion e r we re se ri ou s. Th e pe tit ion e r b e ars the burd e n to de mon str a te that th e a tta c ks a g a ins t hi m
rose to the level of pe rsec ution and not mere ha rassment. As an i v . I

NS , 154 F.3d 719, 723 ( 7th Cir. 1998). Howe ver, V ata ne ed not prove that he re ceive d “ser ious injuries” as a result of the attac ks in or der to e stablish pa st pe rsec ution. Id. ; se e Be gz ato wsk i v. I NS , 278 F.3d 665, 670 ( 7th Cir. 2002) (“w e pre viously

have r ejec ted attempts by the B I A to impose on asylum applicants the additional burden of establishing pe rmane nt or serious injuries as a result of their persec ution”). Rather, perse cution has been define d as “‘punishment’ or ‘the infliction of ha

rm.’” Id. ; see also Prasad v. IN S , 47 F.3d 336, 339 ( 9th Cir. 1995) (“suff eringor har

m”). I t is a lso imp or

tant t o c lari fy

the dif fe re nc e be tw e e n th e se verit y of harm r e qu ir e d to demonstrate pa st perse cution alone as opposed t o past perse cution acc ompanied by a we ll-founded fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. “Mild persec ution may be something of an oxy moron, but the regulation makes c lear

that a re fug ee w ho has no rea sonable fear of future perse cution must indeed prove that his past persec ution was a seve re r ather than a mild (borderi n g o n ‘m er e’ discrimination) form of perse cution.” Bu c ur

v . I NS , 109 F .3 d 399 , 406 (7 th Cir . 199 7) . Cour ts h a ve a lso he ld t

hat “ thr e a ts of vi olence and death are enoug h” to constitute perse cution. Cor do n- Ga rc ia v . I

NS , 204 F.3d 985,No. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-20- 99 1 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 0) ; see also Thomas , 359 F.3d at 1179 (“e scalating scheme of intimi dation and a

re a l th re a t of

ph y sic a l v iol e nc e ” de e me d p e rs e c uti on ); Sin gh v . I NS , 94 F.3d 1353, 1360 ( 9th Cir. 1996) (“ There is no question that persistent d eath thre ats and a ssaults on one' s life, family , and business rise to the leve l of perse cution within the meaning of the Act.”)

. Be cause we are compelled to f ind that the cumulative ef

fec ts of the two incidents did rise to the leve l of “pe rsec ution,” we r ejec t the B oard’ s additional rationale f or deny ing V ata’ s asylum application. Th e viol ent incidents desc ribed by Vata c onstitut e a le vel of punishment, suffe ring and infliction of harm suff

icient to establish past p ersecution. The storming of the Don B osco Center posed a se vere threat to Vat a’ s l i fe

. His lack of bullet wounds doe s not dimi nish the terror and suffe ring cause d by

the small milit ia’s ar

med invasion and gunfire, w hich drove Vata f rom his home. Additionally , on September 15, 2002, V ata was repe atedly beate n and kicked by four maske d

me n s ay ing , “ We’ re g onna kil l y ou . We ’r e g on na

kil l y our f

a mil y .” As a

re su lt o f t

he a tta c k, Vata testified th a t h e s u f

f e r e d h e a d in ju r ie s an d w a s b le e d in g . H e s u

b mi tt e d c li n ic a l d o c u me n tation pr e sc ri bin g a

tr e a tme nt o f b e d- re st, anti bio tic s and pa in r e lie ve rs ov e r the c ours e of se ve n d ay s. B oth pr ior and su bs e qu e nt t o th e Se pte mbe r 1 5, 20 02 att a c k, Vata re c e ive d nume ro us ph on e c a lls threatening further

harm a nd death if he continued to speak out or informed t h e author ities of the attack. T his e scalating scheme of intimidation and actual violenc e, conside red a long w ith the Don B os c o sho oti ng , w a s a

le ve l of punis hme nt, su ff

e ri ngand inf lic tio n o f h arm

su ff ic ie nt t o e sta

bli sh past perse cution. As such, the B I A’s denial of Vata’ s asylum a pplication cannot be justified on the ba sis of the se ve ri ty

of his inj ur ie s. (iv) I nability

or Unwilling ness to ProtectNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-21- Th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s thi rd ratio na le fo r de nying Vata ’s a sylum a pp lic a tio n wa s th a t V a ta pr e se nte d in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e that A lba

nia n a uth or iti e s r e ma in un wi lli ngor un a ble to p ro te c t hi m from future p er secution. B eca use we find that substantial evidenc e does not c ompel a diffe rent

re su lt, we a ff

ir m th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s de nia l of Vata ’s a sylum

a pp lic a tio n o n th e se g ro un ds

. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1) establishes that a finding of past perse cution require s the applica nt to be subjectively

and objec tively

“unable or unwilling to r eturn to, or avail himself or her self of the protec tion of, that country owing to such perse cution.” Wit h reg ard to the Don B osco shooting, the BIA noted that Vata “wa s not sur e whether or not police re sponded to help.” V ata a ctually testified that th e po lic e we re c a lle d, bu t th a t he wa s una wa re of any arrests resul tin g fr om t

he inc ide nt. Although the I mmigration J udg e noted that 1997 was a “ time of particula r turmoil in Albania,” the shooting and forc ible invasion of a known re sidence of Catholic seminaria ns still signifie s a seve re threa t to pu

b li c s a f e ty d e s e r v in g o f an o f

f ic ia l r e s p o n s e . H o w e v e r , V a ta ’ s te s ti mo n y d o e s not conclusively

reve al whethe r police c onducted a n investigation or

wh e th e r a r r e s ts w e r e a ctually

made. Rather, Vata simply

claims ignor ance of any officia l rea ction that may or may not have take n place

. W i t h re gar d

t o t h e S ep t em b er

1 5 , 2 0 0 2 at t ac k , t h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d g e f o u n d t h at al t h o u gh the offic er ne ar the entra

nce of the police station discour ag ed Vata from filing a repor t, the petitioner “g ave up r ather

easily .” Additionally , Vata “ made no e ffor t to go ba ck to the police or to seek protec tion from any

other ty pe of se curity

units withi n Albania.” Although it is unclear what “other ty p e o f s e c u r it y u n it s ” c o u ld

h a v e r e s p o n d e d

to th is in c id e n t o r

p r e v e n te d

f u rth e r a tt a c k s , V a ta ’s claim would have been stre ng thened by further evidenc e that the Alba

nian aut h o r it ie s w ere unwilling

or un a ble to p ro te c t hi m a ft e r t

he Se pte mbe r 1 5, 20 02 inc ide nt.No. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-22- The B I A also found that it was “uncle ar whether the timing of the report was the reason f or the po lic e of

fi c e r’ s r e a c tio n. ” Vata

te sti fi e d th a t th e po lic e “

jus t mad e jok e a t me and

jus t te lli ngme g o home.” In response to further questioning f

rom the I mmigration J udg e, Vata explained, he wa s just laughingto me cause they just came to y ou and y ou’re coming here and is say ing that, that people g etting killed. The y ’re people ge tting shot and they don’t come he re to g et, to do repor ts. Not y ou. What we gonna do? So just g o awa y . I t’s not worth it. Go awa

y and g o home. Fr om this testimony , it a

ppear s as though the police downplay ed the sever ity of the attack as opposed to q ue ry ingwh y Vata wa ite d a we e k to file a re po rt
. Ho we ve r, Vata ’s de c isi on to r e c ov e r f

ro m hi s inj u r ies befor e appr oachingthe authorities may have c ontributed to their ineff ectivene ss if they

wer e, in f a c t, w ill ingto i nv e sti g a te Vata ’s c la im. I n an y c a se , ra the r tha

n re tur nin g to the statio n s ome oth e r d ay or re qu e sti ngto s pe a k w ith t h e o f f i c e r ’ s s u p e r v i s o r o r t h e i n d i v i d

u a l i nc h ar g e o f

f i l i n g r e p o r t s , V a t a

f l e d t h e c o u n t r

y. Admittedly , Vata’ s persona l state m ent described how the thr eate ning phone calls re ceive d subsequent to September

15, 2002, war

ned that he would be killed if he informe d the authorities of the attac k. Yet, without further information demonstratingthe unre liability of the Alba

nian police, the I mmigrati o n J u d ge and the B oard of I mmigration Appeals we re not unre asonable when they

c on c lud e d th a t V a ta

fa ile d to de mon str a te that A lba nia n a uth or iti e s w e re un wi lli ngor un a ble to pr ote c t hi m. Simi larly , the I mmigration J udg e found tha t the two article s submitt ed by Vata r eg arding Catholic priests killed in Albania provided only minimal support for Vata’ s asylum application bec au s e t h e motive for the ir murder s was uncle ar. The first article , dated Oc tober 11, 2001,No. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-23- descr ibes an I talian priest who wa s repe atedly stabbed to death. A lthough the authorities rule d out robber y as a motive due to the 500,000 Albanian L ek that rema ined unt ouched by the per petrator, the ar ticle states, “[r] ea s o n o f t h is incident are still unknown and the e x perts ar e wor king in the investigation said the police source .” The second article , dated Aug ust 11, 2000, states only that “F r. J oaquin B erna

rdo, 42, a D ominican priest wor king in Alba

nia to m ake the elec toral sy stem more democr atic has be en found bound a nd strang led in Tirana , the ca pital.” Neither arti cle sugg ests, let alone pr esents any evidenc e supporting the asser tion, that the priests wer e killed as a

result of their r elig ious activism. Significa ntly , neither a

rticle mentions any Gover nment failure to properly investigate t he incidents. I n fac t, the first article even r efe renc es the on-g oing c riminal investigation. As such, t he reported murders of two priests within the span of two y ears, without any

evidenc e of police misconduct or a political or relig ious moti vation for the killings, fail to establish that the Albania n police ar e unwilling or una ble to protec t Vata f

rom perse cution. I n c on tr a st, the g ov e rnme nt s ub mit te d in to e vid e nc e the Dep a r t m e nt o f S t a t e C ountr y Re po rt s on Human Rig hts Practices f or Albania

and t h e 2 0 0 1 and 2004 Profiles of A sy lum Cl aims and Country Conditi ons conce rning Albania. The se bac kg round mater ials contradic t Vata’ s contention t h a t t h e A l b an i ana

u t h o r i t i e s w e r e u n w i l l i n g o r u n a b l e t o p r o t e c th i m f

r o m p e r s e c u t i o n . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, t h e I m m i gra tion J udg e cited the 2004 Profile of Asy lum Cl aims and Country

Conditi ons, which states that Albania is “ rec og nized for its relig ious toleranc e,” and “all relig ious g roups fre ely prac tice their fa ith.” L ikewise, the profile explains, “[ t] here has bee n no evidenc e to indicate a ny pattern of g overnme nt mist reatment of i ndividuals on the basis of religious be lief. More over, the g overnme ntNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-24- has bee n quick to addre ss case s of discord among r elig ious gr oups.” Ultimately , bey ond Vata’ s own testimony , the re cord is devoid of other r eliable e vidence of the Albanian a

uthorities’ inability or unwillingness to pr otect Vata from perse cution. The B oard of I mmigration Appeals af

firmed the Immigration J udg e’s r uling that this insufficiency prec luded a finding of past per secution. L ikewise, Vata’s fa ilure to demonstrate the Albanian g overnme nt’s inability or unwillingne ss to protect hi m prec ludes a finding of an objec tive, well-re asoned f ear of future p er s ec u tion because Vata ha s not established a “ rea sonable possibility of suffe ring such perse cution if he or she wer e to re turn to that co u n t ry . ” 8 C

. F. R. § 208.13(b)(2) (B ). Given that substantial evidence does not compel a differ ent re sult, we aff

irm the Boa

rd’s de nial of Vata’s

a sylum a pp lic a tio n o n th e se g ro un ds

. (v) I nterna l Relocation I n addition, “[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of perse cution if the applica nt

c ou ld a vo id pers ecutionby

re loc a tin g to a

no the r p art

of the a pp lic ant' s c ountr

y of natio na lity , if under a ll the circumstanc es it would be re as o n ab l e t o expect the applica nt to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 2)(ii). “ I n case s in which the applicant has not e stablished past perse cution, the applica nt shall bear the burden of establishi ng that it would not be re asonable for him or he r to reloc ate.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 3)(i). I n th e ins tant c a se , the I mmi g ra tio n Judg e br ie fl y no te d that “ int e rn a l r e loc a tio n a pp a re ntl y
was ne ver soug ht by

the re spondent.” Indeed, at th at t i m e, Vata of fer ed no evide nce a s to why internal re location would not be a prac tical alternative. On the other hand, the g overnme nt submit ted thr e e c ountr

y re po rt s and

pr of ile s su g g e sti ngthat e ve n if Vata ha d e nd ang e re d h ims e lf

by a c tiv e lyNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-25- pa rt ic ipatin g in the Se pte mbe r 11 , 20 02 c omm e mor a tiv e me e tin g , he wo uld have lit tle tr ou ble reloc ating to another part of Albania wher e he c ould avoid future pe rsec ution. As Vata pre sented no evidenc e to the contra

ry , we aff irm the Boa

rd’s ruling denying V ata’ s asylum application on the basis that Vata f

ailed to establish that interna l relocation was not a re asonable option. 2. Petitioner’s Application for Wit hholding of

Removal Unlike discre tionary

g rants of asylum, withholding of remova l is mandatory if an a pplicant fulfill s the conditions of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (A). “ [T] he Attorne y Gene ral may

not remove a

n alien to a country

if the Attorney

Gene ral de cides that the a lien' s life or fr eedom would be threatened in that country

beca use of the a lien' s rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (A). “ I n order to make this showing, the a lien

mus t e sta bli sha ‘c le ar p ro ba

bil ity ’ o f p e rs e c uti on

on a c c ount o f o ne of

the e nume ra

te d g ro un ds

. Th is c le ar p ro ba

bil ity sta nd ard re qu ir e s a

sh ow ing that it is mor e lik e ly tha n n ot t hat an a lie n w ou ld be subjec t to persec ution.” Matter of Mogharrabi , 1 9 I

. & N. De c. 4 3 9 , 4 4 0 (B I A 1 9 8 7 ) ( ci t i n g IN S

v . S te v ic , 4 67 U. S. 4 07 , 4 13 (1 98 4) ); se e als o 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)( 2). “An a pplication seeking withholding of de portation fac es a more stringe nt burden of pr oof than one f

or asylum.” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 391. As such, an a pplicant who is inelig ible for asylum necessa

rily “ca nnot satisfy

the more string ent standar d for withholding of deportation.” Da ne sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 355 F.3d 615, 625 (6th Cir. 2004). Given that we affirm the Boar d’s ruling denying V ata’ s asylum application beca use Vata failed to establish (1) the Albanian g overnme nt’s inability or unwillingne ss to protec t him from persecution; and (2) that internal reloc ation would not be a pr actica l al t er n at i v e, we must necessa rily aff irm the Boa

rd’s de nial of Vata’s application forNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-26- withholding of r emoval bec ause V ata f ailed to establish a “cle ar probability ” that his life or f ree dom would be thre atene d if he re turned to Albania

. 3. Petitioner’s Application for Relief Unde r CAT

a. Law Governing Applications for Relief Under CAT Simi lar to w ithholding of remova l, a n immigration judge is re quired to provide r elief unde r CAT when a

n applicant establishes “that it is more likely than not that he or she would be torture d if remove d to the proposed c ountry of re moval

. ” 8 C

. F. R

. § 208.16(c) (2). Ar ticle 3 of CAT pr ov ide s: (1) No state par

ty shall expel, ret u rn , (‘ refouler’) or extradite a pe rson to another state whe re the re are substantial g rounds for believing that he would be in dang er of being subjected to torture

. (2) For the purpose of

deter mining whe ther ther e ar e such g rounds, the compe tent authorities shall take into a ccount a ll releva nt considerations incl u d in g , w h e r e a

p p li c a b le , th e e xis te n c e in

th e St a te c o n c e r

n e d o f a c o n s is te nt patte rn of g ro ss, fl a g ra

nt, or ma ss v iol a tio ns of

human r ig hts

. 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 8( a )( 1) de fi ne s to rt ur e a s

any a c t by wh ic h s e ve re pa in o r s uf

fe ri ng , w he the r p hy sic a l or me nta l, i s in te nti on a lly inflicted on a pe rson for suc h purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third pe rson information or a co n fe ssion, punishi ng him or her f or an a ct he or

she or a third person ha s committed or is suspected of ha ving c ommitt ed, or intimidating or coer cing him or her or

a third per son, or fo r any rea son based on discr imination of any kin d, wh e n su c h pa in or su ff e ri ng is inf

lic te d by or a t the ins tig a tio n of or wi th the conse nt or acquie scenc e of a public officia l or other pe rson ac ting in an of ficial c a p a c i t y. The “ more likely

than not” standa

rd is identical to the applica nt’s burden when see king withholding of r emoval. See 8 C. F .R. § 208 .1 6( b) (2 ). L ike wi se , “[t]he te sti mony of the a pp lic a nt, if cr ed i ble, may

be suff icient to sustain the burden of proof without cor

roboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2). F inally , evidenc e re levant to deter mining the possibility

of future torture may

includeNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-27- (i) Evidenc e of pa st torture inflicted upon the a pplicant; (ii) Evid en ce t hat the applicant c ould relocate to a par t of the country

of re mo v al wh ere he or she is not likely to be tortured; ( iii) Evidence of g ross, flag rant or ma ss vi olations of human rig hts within t he countr

y of re moval, wher e applica ble; and (iv) O ther relevant inf or ma tio n r e g ard ingc on dit ion s in the c ountr

y of re mov a l. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (3). b. Analysis of Petitioner’s Application for Relief Under CAT The Immigration J udg e r

u led that he ha d “no information to demonstrate that the g overnme nt

a c qu ie sc e d in the a tta c k on [Vata ] i n Se pte mbe r 20 02 so re lie f un de r Ar tic le 3 Co nv e nti on

Ag a ins t Torture would not be ava ilable.” Va ta prope rly

notes that “the B I A' s decision wit h re s p ec t t o an alien' s claims for a sy lum and withholding of r emoval pursua nt to the I NA should neve r, i n itself, be deter minative of the alien' s CAT claim.” Ra ms am e ac hir e v . A sh c ro ft , 357 F.3d 169, 185 ( 2d Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Kam alt

ha s v . I NS , 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001) (“a claim under

the Convention is not mere ly a s u

b s e t o f c la im s f

o r e it h e r a s y lum o r w it

h h o ld in g o f r e mo v a l” ) )

. H o w e v e r , the Kam alt ha s Court hig hli g hte d a

n e sse nti a l di sti nc tio n amon g the sta nd ard s: I n an im portant sense, then, t he C onvention' s rea ch is both broade r and na rrowe r than that of a c laim for asy

lum or with-holding of

d eportation: covera g e is broade r beca use a pe titioner need not show that he or she would be tortured ‘on account of’ a prote cted g round; it is narrowe r, howe ver, be cause the petitioner must show that it is ‘more likely

than not ’ t hat he or she will be tortured, and not s imply perse cuted u p o nr e m o v a l t o a

g i v e nc o u n t r

y. 251 F.3d at 1283. There fore , with reg ard to the standa rd g overning the l ikelihood of future torture, the “‘more likely than not’ burden of proof is similarly highe r than the ‘ well-founde d fea r’ bur den require d to establish a claim for asylum.” Ramaj , 466 F.3d at 532. As such we find that the B oard’ s aff irmation of the I mmigration J udg e’s de n i al of Vata’sNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-28- application for

relief under CAT w as supported by substantial e vidence

. The Immigration J udg e’s analy sis, though brie f, per tains directly to an eleme nt shared be tween c laims for asylum and relief

u n d e r CA T : the “co n s e n t o r

a c qu ie s c e n c e ” o f

p u b li c o f f ic ia ls

. 8 C. F

. R. § 2 0 8

. 1 8 ( a ) ( 1 )

. We pr e vio us ly de te rm ine d that Vata fa ile d to e sta bli sh a “ we ll- fo un de d fe ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on ” a s a
re su lt o f ins uf

fi c ie nt ev ide nc e that the Al ba nia n g ov e rnme nt wa s una

ble or un wi lli ng to p ro te c t hi m. This ruling ne cessa

rily prec ludes a findingthat Vata e stablished it is “more likely than not” that he will be tortured “ with the consent or a cquiesc ence of a public of ficial.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a) (1). B. Issue Tw o: Whether the BIA Abused its Discretion in De nyin g P etitioner ’s Motion to Reopen 1. Standard of Re view and L aw Gove rning Motions to R eopen “The decision to g rant or de ny a motion to reopen or rec onsider is within the discretion of the B oa rd .” 8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 2( a ). “ A m oti on to r e op e n p ro c e e din g s sh a ll n ot be g ra nte d un le ss i t

a pp e ars to t

he B oa rd that e vid e nc e so ug ht to be of fe re d is ma te ri a l and

wa s n ot a va ila ble and c ou ld not have be en discove red or prese nted at the former hear ing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). L ikewise, “[A] m otion to reopen will not be g rante d unless the re spondent establishes a pr ima fa ci e ca se of elig ibilit y for the unde rly ing r elief soug ht.” In re S- V- , 22 I . & N . Dec . 1306, 1307 (B I A 2000). “ [A]

re sp on de nt d e mon st rate s p ri ma fa c ie e lig ibi lity

fo r r e lie f w he re the e vid e nc e re ve a ls a re a so na ble likelihood that the statutory require ments for relief have be en satisfied.” Id. at 1308. The B oard ha s not “re quired a

conclusive showingthat elig ibilit y for relief has bee n established.” Id. I nstead, the BIA re opens proc eeding s “whe re the new f acts al l ege d , when c oupled with the fa cts alre ady of

rec ord, satisfy

[t he B IA] that it would be wor thwhile to develop the issues fur ther at a plenar

yNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-29- hear ing on r eopening .” Matter of Sipus , 14 I . & N . Dec . 229, 231 (B I A 1972). We revie w t he BI A’s denial of P etitioner’s Motion to Reopen for abuse of discretion. IN

S v. Abudu , 4 85 U. S. 9 4, 10 7 ( 19 88 ). “ I n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he B oard abu se d it s d isc re tio n, thi s Co u rt m u s t d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e d e n i a l o f P e t i t i o n e r ' s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n . . . w a s m a de wi tho ut a

ratio na l e xplanatio n, ine xplic a bly de pa rt e d fr om e sta

bli sh e d po lic ie s, or re ste d o n a n im pe rm iss ibl e basis such as invidious discrimination ag ainst a par ticular ra ce or g roup.” Ba lan i v . I NS , 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 (6th Cir. 1982). “L eg al issues are revie wed de novo.” Ha rc he nk o v . I NS , 379 F.3d 405, 309 (6th Cir. 2004). 2. Analy sis of Petiti oner’ s Motion to R eopen On Marc h 21, 2006, Vata f iled a Motion to Reopen with the Boa rd. I n support of his moti on, Vata submitted the re port of Dr. Be rnd Fischer, an expert on Albania and Ba lkan af fairs. O n May 26 , 2 00 6, the B oa

rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls de nie d Peti tio ne r’ s Moti on to Re op e n, statin g that V a ta failed to de monstrate that “curre nt country conditions in Albania, when considered in conjunction with his prior claim, g ive him an objectively rea sonable fe ar of

perse cution in Albania.” I nitially , we f

ind that the majority

of i nformation conta ined within Fische r’s re port was dis c ov e ra ble a t th e tim e of Pe tit ion e r’ s ini tia l me ri ts he ari ng he ld on Au g us t 31 , 2 00 4. Pur su a nt t o 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , s u c h e v i d e n c e i s i n e f f e c t i v e i ns u

p p o rto f a m o t i o nt o r e o p e n . A d d i t i o n a l l y, Fische r’s re port d oes not contain e vidence of changed country conditions in Albania. Rather, the alleg edly new a nd materia l evidence depicts a level of corruption and int olera nce that has plag ued Albania throug hout the past dec ade. F inally , the data that was unava ilable at the time of Petitioner’ s initial merits hearing fails to evince a “r easona ble likelihood that the statutory require ments for re liefNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-30- have be en satisfied.” In re S- V- , 22 I . & N . Dec . at 1308. I mpo rt antl y , F isc he r’ s r e po rt pr ov ide s v irtu a lly

no ma te ri a l e vid e nc e tha t w a s b oth unavailable at the time of Petitioner’s initial mer its he aring and eff ectively supports Vata’ s fea r of relig ious persec ution. The only undiscovera ble i nformation wa s Fische r’s stateme nt, “I n September 2005 I lir Kulla, the vice -cha irman of the Muslim community resig ned afte r stating that he had bee n threatened by

the ra dical mufti of Elbasan.” At best, this statement reve als an incr emental e scalation of Muslim ex tremism within Albania. Howeve r, this information does not constitute new a nd materia l evidence sufficie nt to warra nt a plenar

y hear ing on r eopening . L ikewise, a ll information within Fi s ch er’ s repor

t discussing Vata’s potential interna l relocation within Albania was d i s co v er ab l e a tt h e t i m e o f P et i t i o n er ’s i n i t i al m er i t s h ea ri n g. I n denying V ata’ s Motion to R eopen, the Bo ar d o f I m migr ation Appea ls ruled that “[a]lt houg h the new e vidence prese nted by t h e re s p o n dent continues to show that the c urre nt conditions in Albania are turbulent, the re spondent has not ade quately demons tr a

te d th a t h is situation is apprec iably

differ ent from the dang ers fac ed by all his f ellow Albanians.” For

example, Fische r’s repor t describe s the corr

uption surround i n g t h e Albania n elec tion of J uly

2005, which wa s
acc ompanied by

“violence ag ainst the political activists of most of the maj o r p ar ties, and death.” Whil e bolsteringnotions of Albania’s political instability , the dang er descr ibed by Fische r re mains

a re ality for a n enormous seg ment of Albania ’s population. L ike wi se , s ome of

the inf or ma tio n p re se nte d in

F isc he r’ s r e po rt

is o nly tang e nti a lly

re le va nt. Fische r cites the police beatingof a “ Socialist P arty member of

parliament.” Given that Vata’s imp ute d p oli tic a l op ini on re pr e se nts the Soc ia lis t Pa rt y ’s dir e c t op po sit ion , thi s in fo rm a tio n f a ils toNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-31- provide a dequate support for Vata’s fear of future perse cution. Simi larly , Fische r quotes the Chief of the Al ba nia n Se rv ic e of

the Vo ic e of

Am e ri c a a s r e c e ntl y

statin g , “ On

too many occas io ns in

r e c e n tye a r s , t h e i n t e r

n a t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y h a s b e e nu n u s u a l l y, an d i nm y o p i n i o nn e e d l e s s l y, restra ined in its criticism of developments in Albania.” Wherea s this comment somewhat weake ns the validity

of the c ountr

y r e p o rts submitt ed by

the g overnme nt, this i nformation re mains insufficient to establish a prima fa cie c ase of elig ibilit y

for the unde rlying r elief soug ht by Vata. The most signific ant evidence presented in Fische r’s report i s his citation of “a br utal attack on two o f t h e most prominent Democr atic Party aff iliated newspa

per e ditors.” This incident provides s o m e i n d ication that ac tivist s within Vata’s imputed par ty have be en tar g eted f

or perse cution as a res u l t o f their political belief s. Howeve r, F ischer’ s brief de scription contains no evidenc e of g overnme nt acquie scenc e. Once ag ain, we are left wit h no information as to whe ther this i n c id e n t w a s p r o p e r ly inv e s ti g a te d o r if th e a tt a c k e r s w e r e e v e n tu a ll y a p p r e h e n d e d or appropr iately

punished. Th e Sup re me Court

ha s h e ld t

hat: I f I NS di scr e tio n is to m e an a ny thi ng , it mus t be that th e I

NS h a s so me la tit

ud e in decidingwhen to re open a c ase. The I NS should have the rig ht to be restrictive. Gra nting suc h motions t oo fre ely will permit endless delay of deportation by aliens cre ative and fer

tile e noug h to continuously produce new a

nd materia l fac ts sufficient to establish a prima fa cie c ase. Abudu , 4 85 U. S. a t 10 8. Ev e n w he n v ie we d in c on jun c tio n w iththe oth e r p re vio us ly un dis c ov e ra

ble

e v i d e n c e w i t h i n F i s c h e r ’ s r e p o rt , a s w e l l a s t h e e v i d e n c e V a t a p r e s e n t e d a t h i s o r i g ina l me ri ts hear ing, the attack on the Democr atic Party newspa per editors fails t o reve al a r easona ble likelihood that Vata’ s statutory require ments for relief have been satisfied. As suc h, we AF F IRM the B oard’ sNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-32- de nia l of Pe tit ion e r’ s Mo tio n to Re op e n. We f ind tha t th e B oa rd did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b e c a

us e its de c isi on

wa s ma de wi th a

ratio na l e xplanatio n a

nd did no t de pa rt fr om e sta bli sh e d p oli c ie s. C. Issue Th ree : Whether the BIA Violated P etitioner ’s Rig h t to Due P roce ss w hen Denying Pe titioner’ s Motion to Re open 1. Standard of Re view and L aw Gove rning Due Proc ess Violations

“ [T]he Du e Pr oc e ss C la

us e a pp lie s to a ll ‘ pe rs on s’ wi thi n th e Un ite d St a te s, inc lud inga lie ns , whether their pre sence here is lawful, unlawful, temporar y , or per manent.” Zad

v y da s v . D av is , 533 U. S. 6 78 , 6 93 (2 00 1) ; se e als o Reno v . Flores , 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (“ I t is well established that the F if th A me ndme nt e nti tle s a lie ns to d ue pr oc e ss o f law in de po rt a tio n pr oc e e din g s. ” ). Th e Sixth Circuit h a s h e ld

th a t a li e n s in

r e mo v a l p r o c e e d in g s ar e e n ti tl e d to a “ f u ll an d f a ir h e aring .” Hu ic oc he a- Go me

z v . I NS , 237 F .3 d 696 , 699 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) ; se e als o A rm str on g v . M an zo , 3 80 U. S. 545, 552 (1965) ( due proc ess re quires an oppor t u n i t y t o be hea

rd “at a meaning ful time and in a

me anin g fu l ma

nn e r” ); Mu lla ne v . Cen t. Ha no v e r Ban k & Tru st C o ., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950) ( due proce ss require s “an oppor tunity for he aringappropr iate to the natur e of the case ”). Fur thermore , due proc ess re quires an adjudicator to ac tually consider the evidenc e and argument prese nted by

the par ties. Morgan v. United States , 298 U.S. 468, 481 (1936). Eve n an
e xer c ise of

dis c re tio n re qu ir e s “so me le ve l of ind ivi du a lize d de te rm inatio n” in or de r to c omp ly wi th t h e re quirements of due proce ss. Flores , 5 07 U. S. at 31 3; see also U.S. e x rel. Ac cardi v. Sh au gh ne ssy , 347 U.S

. 2 6 0 , 2 6 8 (1954). W e re view cla ims of due proc ess violations in removal pr oc e e din g s de novo

. Huicoche a-Gome z , 237 F.3d at 699. 2. Analy sis of Due Proce ss ViolationNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-33- Due pr ocess r equire s eac h case to be “e valuated on its own merits to de termine whether the alien' s fac tual support and conc rete evidenc e are suff icient to establish a cle ar pr obability of perse cution.” Sa rv ia- Qu int an illa v . I NS , 767 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1985)

. I n the instant case , we fi nd tha t th e B oa rd ’s de nia l of

Vata ’s Mo tio n to Re op e n, wh ile c ur so ry , d id n ot v iol a te Petitioner’s rig ht to due proce ss. Wit h reg ard to a

n individualiz ed determination of t he merits, the Board f ound that “the ne w
e vid e nc e su

bmi tte d by the re sp on de nt in c on ne c tio n wi th his mot ion to r e op e n d oe s n ot s a tis fy the se exacting sta

ndards.” S p ec i fi cally , the B oard note d that Vata’ s motion t o reope n was “ based on a

re p o rt fr o m s o m eo n e c l ai m i n g t o b e ah i s t o ry p ro fe s s o r. ” Ho we v er , th e Bo ar d fo u n d t h at “[ a] l t h o u gh the ne w e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y the res po nd ent c on tin

ue s to sh owthat th e c ur

re nt c on dit ion s in Al ba nia are tur bu le nt, the re sp on de nt h a s n ot a de qu a te ly de mon str a te d th a t hi s si tu ati on is

a pp re c ia bly dif fe re nt f ro m th e da

ng e rs fa c e d by a ll his fe llo w Alb ania ns .” Th is s e nti me nt t

ra c ks thi s Cou rt ’ s a f

o r e m e n t i o n e d

an a l y s i s o f

V a t a ’ s M o t i o nt o R e o p e n . F i n a l l y , t h e B o ar d c o n c l u d e d

i ts decision by

noting that F ischer “ was last in Albania in Septembe r of 2004,” signa ling not only that the B oard r ead a

nd proper ly

evaluat ed Fi s ch er ’s report, but also that a sig nificant portion of the i n fo rm at i o np ro v i d edt h er ei nwa s o b t ai n ab l e a tt h e t i m e o f V at a’ s o ri gi n al m er i t s h ea ri n g. Due pr ocess doe s not r equire that the Boa rd “list e very possible positive and neg ative fa ctor in its decision.” Sc or te an u v . I NS , 3 3 9 F. 3 d

4 0 7 , 4 1 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Rodriguez-Rive ra v. IN S , 993 F.2d 169, 170-71 (8th Cir. 1993)). Indeed, the Boa rd “ha s no duty

to write an e x eg esis on

e ve ry con ten tio n. What is re qu ir e d is me re ly that it c on sid e r t

he iss ue s r a ise d, and

ann ounc e its decision in terms suffic ient to enable a revie wing court to perc eive that it has hear d and thoug ht andNo. 06-3066 / 06-3734

Vata v. Gonzales

-34- not merely

rea cted.” Scorteanu , 3 3 9 F. 3 d at 4 1 2 (c i t i n g Os uc hu k

wu v . I NS , 744 F.2d 1136, 1142- 43 (5th Cir. 1984)). Given that we find that the Board pr operly considere d Fische r’s re port and issued an individualized determination of Vata’s cla ims, we find that the B oard DI D NO T VIO LATE Vata’ s due proc ess rig hts when it denied Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen. IV. C ONCL US I ON For the aforementioned r easons, we AF F IRM the ruling s of the B oard. We AF F IRM the Boa rd’s denial of Vata’ s asylum a pplication beca

use Vata failed to e stablish ( 1 ) t h e A l b an ian go v er n m ent’s inability

or unwillingne ss to protect him from per secution; and (2) that internal

re l o cation would not be a prac tical alter native. We also AF F IRM th e B o ar d ’ s d e n ia l o f Vata’ s applications for

withholding of r emoval and relief under CAT. We also AF F IRM the B oard’ s denial of Vata’ s Motion to R eopen be cause Petitioner failed to off er e vidence that was both mater ial and unava ilable at the time of h i s former hear ing pur suant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). F inally , we find that the B oard DI D N OT V IOL AT E Vata ’s du e pr oc e ss r ig hts wh e n it de nie d h is M oti on

to Reopen.