The Honora ble Robert H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. As le a d Peti tio ne r, Pa l Rranxburg a j is re fe rr e d to as “Pe tit ion e r” and his c o- pe tit ion e r f

a mil y 1 me mbe rs are re fe rr e d to by the ir fi rs t na me s. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0396n.06 F iled: July 1, 2008 No. 07-3490 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT PALRRANXBU RGAJ , et al., Pe tit ion e rs -A

pp e lla nts , v. MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF ANO R D E R

O F T H E B O AR D O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: SILE R and COL E, Circuit Judges; and CL ELAND, District Judge. * CLELAND, DistrictJudge. Petitioner Pal Rranx burg aj and his family petition for re view of an order

of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) denying the ir claim of a sy lum. Petit ioners raise va rious proce dural a

nd substantive challeng es to the denia l of their petit ion. We deny revie w.

I. Petitioners Pal Rranx burg aj, Marije ( his w ife), Alfons (his son) and Mirela (his daug hter) a re natives and c itiz ens of Alba nia. Petitioner and his w ife enter ed the United States on J une 3, 2000 1 as visitors for ple as u re au t horized to stay not past Dec ember

2, 2000. Mirela a

nd Alfons enter ed without inspection ne ar Br o wnsville, Texas on Dece mber 20, 2000 a nd Dec ember

31, 2000,No. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 2 - respe ctively . P et i t i o n er f iled an applica

tion for asylum and withholding of r emoval on May 14, 2001. The immigr ation office r who re ceive d the application found that Petitioner’s testimony was not cre dible and re fer

red the matter to an imm i gration j udg e. Petitioner’s a pplication detailed a history of political ac tivity

in Albania’s then- opposition Democratic Par ty , which resulted in various detentions, beatings a

nd other a dverse conseque nces by g overnme ntal authorities ag ainst Petiti oner. Petitioners conce ded re movability at their Nove mber 13, 2001 hear ing but r equeste d asylum
a s r e lie f fr om re mov a l. Pe tit ion e r’ s f a mil y me mbe rs did

no t f ile se pa rate a sylum

a pp lic a tio ns ; th e ir
re l i ef wa s co n t i n gen tas d o m i ci l i ar i es u p o n P et i t i o n er ’s s u cc es s fu l re qu es t
. T h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge hear d evidenc e at a

separ ate he aringand, on Decembe r 9, 2002, re ndere d an ora l decision g ranting asylum. The immi gra t i on judge ref err ed to Petitioner’s appr ox imately 120-pag e memora

ndum d es cribing “c onditions i n Albania” and “the problems that [P etitioners] have experienc ed.” T he immigration judge a lso r efe rre d to doc umentary evidenc e supporting Petitioner’s medica l injuries
an d “p o l i t i ca l ac t i v i t i es i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e Al b an i an go v ern m en t , ” al t h o u gh t h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge also observe d that the re cord c ould have be en better develope d by , among other thing s, a medical examinati o n in th e U n it e d St a te s an d c o lo r p h o to g r a p h s o f Pe ti ti o n e r ’ s s c ar s an d o th e r s ig ns of mistreatment. The immig ration judg e also ref ere nced a Depa rtment of State prof

ile repor t about Albania. The immigration judge later noted that the m ost rec ent report at t he ti me judg ed Albania ’s human ri g hts re c or d a s “ po or ” and that po lic e the re “ be a t and oth e rw ise a bu se d s us pe c ts, de ta ine e s, and prisoner s.” The immigr ation judge hear d Petitioner’s testimony and found him cre dible in his testim ony
re g ard inga

se ri e s o f a

rr e sts and “ sig nif ic ant p hy sic a l mi str e a tme nt” in A lba nia fro m lat e 19 90 toNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 3 - Aug ust 1999. The im migr ation judge considere d inconsistencies in Petitioner’s cla ims and the fac t that he obtained a

g overnme nt-issued passport fr om Albania af ter his alleg ed probl em s with the g overnme nt, but the j udg e believed P etitioner’s account that he obtained the passport af ter c oming out of hiding a

nd while avoiding his home are a where he experience d problems. The imm igr ation judge also cre dited the testimony of a non-family char acte r wit ness who visited Albania in 2001 a nd sp ok e wi th P e tit ion e r’ s c on c e rn e d b ro the rs . Respondent appe aled the g rant of a sy lum to the BI A and, while the appea l was pending , filed a motion to rema

nd. The mot ion to rema

nd relied upon new evidence obtained in an Apr il 30, 2003 investigation report (“ Embassy Report”) from the Ame rica n Embassy

in Albania conc luding that Petitioner prese nted fraudulent documents a s part of his asy lum application. The B I A re manded the matter, which was assigne d to a diffe rent immigr ation judge beca use the fir st judge was a

visiti ng judge from Seattle. The BIA reasoned that rema nd was appropriate beca

use P etitioner submitted the alleg edly fra udulent documents thirteen da y s befor e the immigr ation judge ’s dec ision and it took four a nd a half months for the emba ssy

to complete its investigation. Theref ore, the BIA conc luded t h at t h i s ev i d en ce co u l d

n o th av e b ee np re s en t edat t h e e ar l i er h ea ri n g. On re mand , th e imm ig ra

tio n ju dg e c on sid e re d th e ne w e vid e nc e , in c lud ingan a ff ida vit seekingto reb u t part of the Embassy Report, and issued a

written dec ision on October 3, 2005 deny ing a sy lum and order ing Petitioners de ported to Albania . The immigr ation judge found that Petitioner lacke d cre d i b i lity beca use he “ submitt ed fr audulent docume ntation as corr oborating evidenc e to support his claims of past per secution and a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution.” The immigr ation judge noted that Petitioner submitt ed no evide nce to r ebut the Embassy Report’sNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 4 - conclusion that he pr esente d a counte rfe it police cer tificate c laiming that Alba nian police ar

rested Petitioner’s son. Wit h respe ct to me dical documentation, the immigration judg e co n cl u d ed that P et i t i o n er d i d n o t p ro v i d e su ff

i ci en t ev i d en ce t o re b u tt h e E mb as s y R ep o rt
. T h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge conclude d that the fa lse evidenc e constituted “essential elements of [P etitioner’s] asylum claim” and

“ [t]he bo tto m li ne is that [Pe tit ion e r’ s] su bmi ssi on of fr a ud ule nt d oc ume nts has d isc re dit e d h is claims for a sy lum and withh o l d i n g o f removal and, there fore , his applications for r elief must be denied.” The i m m i gration j udg e also pre sented a n alternative basis for de nying a sy lum. The immigration judge f

ound that, even if

Pet i t ioner’s c laim were deeme d cre dible, chang ed countr y conditions in Albania reb u t P et itioner’s pre sumption of a well-founde d fea r of pr osecution. There fore , acc ording to the immigration judge, Petitioner failed to show a li kelihood of per secution up on re tur

n to Al ba nia . A c c or din g to t

he 20 04 c ou

ntr y re po rt , th e re we re no po lit ic a l ki lli ng s, Al b an ia ’ s h u ma

nr ig h ts r e c o r d

im p r o v e d n o ti c e a b ly a f te r 1 9 9 8 an d

p o li ti c a l a c ti v it ie s s u c h as elec tions have bee n g ener ally fre e of violenc e and police interfe renc e since 2000. Petitioner appea led this decision to the BIA, which dismiss ed the appeal on Apr il 6, 2007. The B I A ag ree d that the immigration judg e could base an adver se cre dibilit y deter mination upon the unrebutted f

alse police repor

t t h at Petitioner submitt ed. The BIA also af firmed the a lternative ho ldi ngthat c ha

ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion s w e re a

su ff ic ie nt b a sis to d e ny

the a sylum

c la im.

II. When the BIA includes its own commentary while adopting the dec ision of the immigrationNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 5 - judge , this c ourt revie ws both decisions. Lazar v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2007). For final orde rs of re moval, fac tual finding s are revie wed unde r t h e s u b s t an tial evidence standard. Mo sta fa v . A sh c ro

ft, 395 F.3d 622, 624 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, “ finding s of fa ct ar e ‘conc lusive unle s s any

rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .’” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft, 36 4 F. 3d 70 0, 70 2 (6t

h Ci r. 20 04 ) ( qu oti ng8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B )) ; se e als o I NS

v . E lia s- Zac ar ias , 50 2 U .S. 47 8, 48 1 n .1 (1 99 2) (r e qu ir ing that the e vid e nc e “ c omp e l” an a lte rn a te
c on c lus ion befo re reve rsin g the B I A) ; Ouda v. I NS, 324 F.3d 445, 451 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he petitioner must sho w t h at t he evide nce pr esente d was so compe lling that no re asonable fac tfinder could fa il to find the requisite perse cution or fe ar of perse cution.”). Constitution al q uestions and questions of law, such a s application of law to undisputed or adjudicated fa cts, are revie wed de novo
. Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 627, 630 ( 6 t h Cir. 2006). The Six th Circuit reviews de novo alleg ed due pr ocess violations in removal he aring s. Mikh a i l ev i t ch v. I NS, 14 6 F .3 d 3 84 , 3 91 (6 th Cir. 1998). A. P etitioner ’s Due P roce ss Challenges Petitioner’s proce eding s did not deprive h i m o f d ue proc ess of law . “We have stated that Fi ft h Am en d ment g uara

ntees of due proce ss ext end to aliens in [removal] procee dings, e ntitli ng them to a full and fa ir hea ring . To constitute fundame ntal unfairne ss, however , a def ect i n the
remo v al p ro ce ed i n g s must have bee n such as mig ht have led to a denial of justice.” Ndrecaj v. Mukase y , 522 F.3d 667, 673 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitt ed). Petitioner must prove pr ejudice to establish a violation of due proce s s . W ar ne r v . A sh c ro

ft, 381 F.3d 534, 539 ( 6th Cir. 2004) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )
. “ T h e r e f o r e , r e v i e w i n g ana l l e g e d d u e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o ni s a

t w o - s t e p i n qu i r

y:No. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 6 - first, whethe r there was a defe ct i n t h e re moval proce eding ; and sec ond, whether the alien wa s prejudice d beca

use of it.” Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 673. Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t th e de c isi on to r e mand

c on sti tut e d a

vio latio n o f d

ue pr oc e ss b e c a

us e the B I A did not a dhere to its own prec edent when it re manded to anothe r immigration judge. See 8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 2( c )( 1) (2 00 8)
. Th e re c or d, ho we ve r, re fl e c ts that the B I A ac te d re a so na bly and in
acc ord wit h its regulations when it rema nded the matter following the presentation of ne w evidenc e contained in the Embassy Report, which Responde nt did not rece ive until after the initial gra nt of asylum. There w as thus no defe ct in the proc eeding s. Petiti oner que stions the delay betwee n when Re sp on de nt i nq

uir e d w iththe Am e ri c an Emb ass y in A lba nia and the date s w he n th e e mba ssy
rec eived the inquiry

and issued its repor

t. Despite that delay , and whatever its cause , it is undi sputed that Respondent had less than two w eeks be fore the hea ring to examine the au t h enticity of Petitioner’s s u

p p o r ti n g d o c u me nta ti o n . H o w e v e r

lo n g th e d o c u ment investigation should have taken, it i s a pp are nt, g ive n th e natur e of the inv e sti g a tio n, the g e og ra ph ic dis tanc e and

bure a uc ratic le ve ls involve d , t h at a thirteen-da y turnaround w ould have be en impossible. Respondent objected on authenticity

g rounds and then f

ollowed up with a thoroug h embassy investigation of fra

ud, which p re s en t edat t en d an tan d

i n h er en tl o gi s t i ca l d i ff

i cu l t i es o f d i s t an ce , d i f

f e r e n tt i m e z o n es , l an gu age translation and the like. Petitioner a rg ues t hat R espondent should have pressed a uthenticity , befor e knowing any

fac ts to establish or suspect fra ud, and re quested a

delay of t he removal hear ing. Such
a re qu ir e me nt w ou ld pr e se nt sig nif ic ant burd e ns up on Re sp on de nt and a sy ste m- wi de log jam of a ll
case s for the ma

rg inal benef

it of rooting out f

raud in a n unknown fra ction of the case s. Under the
c ir c ums tanc e s, we c on c lud e that th e de c isi on to r e mand c re a te d n o d e fe c t in

the pr oc e e din g s and

didNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

Petitioner only

objected to the ne w immigration judge after the de nia l of

a sylum
. 2 Petitioner’s due proc ess cha lleng es ar e made in passing a nd not cog ent in their pre sentation. 3 At their cor e, they

claim that the second immigration judg e “fa iled to consider” cer tain evidentiar

y problems. Petiti o n er’ s argument draw s no distinction between disag ree ments on the merits and c on sti tut ion a l de pr ivatio n o f d ue pr oc e ss. - 7 - not form pre

judice of a

constitutional dim ension for Petitioner. Fur ther, Petitioner cites no a uthority est ablishing that he had a rig ht to a particula

r immigration j u dg e. “A neutral judge is one of the most basic due proce ss protections.” Re y es- 2 Mele ndez v. I

NS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (empha sis added, interna l quotation omit ted). “I t is undisput ed that petitioners in such pr ocee dings a re e ntitled to an unbiased ar biter who ha s not prejudg ed their claims.” Ah me d v . G on za le s, 39 8 F .3 d 72 2, 72 5 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . T he re c or d in thi s
case does not sug g est that the s econd immig ration judg e appr oache d the ca se with a c losed mind or a par tial positi on. Be cause the first immigratio n j u d g e wa s a visiting judg e fr om Seattle, it was sensible for the parties to pre sent the ca se l ive to a diffe rent immigr ation judge in Detroit. Nor doe s Petitioner cite per suasive author it y requiringRespondent to make a remote judg e ava ilable by teleconf er en ci n g t ec h n o l o gy . T h e l ac k o f s u ch a r eq u i re m en tp erh ap s re fl ec t s t h e i n h er en tdraw backs of judg ing the cr edibility

of live testimony

transmitted remotely

throug h technolog y

that is confining in many materia l respec ts. I n light of these unavoidable shortcoming s, there w as no re versible e rror in the deter

mination that the orig inal immigr at i o n j u d ge was unavailable pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(b). Petitioner sty les other a

rg uments as due pr ocess c oncer ns, but they

are in fac t challeng es on 3 the merits to the adver se cre dibilit y deter mination of the second immigration judg e. As explainedNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 8 - below, the r ecor d demonstrates that this i mmigration judg e g ave due weig ht and consider ation to the previous factual finding s, but counterba lance d them ag ainst the new e vidence of fr aud and the ch an gedco u n t ry

co n d i t i o n s . Di s agr ee m en t wi t h t h e co n cl u s i o n s o f t h e o ri gi n al i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge does not nec essar ily mean that the arbiter had a bias that “thre atene d the fundame ntal fairne ss of the hear ing.” Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 6 73. Fur ther, a ny alleg ed pre

judice to Petitioner is of no
c on sti tut ion a l mo me nt, a s the de nia l of a sylum fi nd s a de qu a te su

pp or t in the a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n a

nd c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion s. B. Fac tual Findings Credibility

deter minations in asy lum procee dings de pend on “a ll releva nt fac tors,” including the applica

nt's de meanor

and the consistency and plausibilit y of the va rious statements. 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( iii ); se e als o 8 U .S. C. § 1229 a (c )( 4) (C ) (2 00 8) (a pp lying the same c re dib ili ty te st t o statements made in a remova l proce eding ). “Credibilit y deter minations are considere d finding s of fa c t, a nd are re vie we d und e r t

he su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e st and ard. This i s a de fe re nti a l st and ard : A
re vie wi ng c ourt sh ou ld not re ve rs e sim ply be c a us e it is con vin c e d that it

wo uld have de c ide d th e c a se differ ently .” Sylla v. INS, 388 F.3d 924, 925 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation marks and citation omi tte d) ; se e als o Mapou y a v . G on za le

s, 48 7 F .3 d 3 96 , 4 06 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . “ Whil e an a dv e rs e
c re dib ili ty

fi nd ingis a ff

or de d su bstanti a l de fe re nc e , th e fi nd ingmus t be su pp or te d b y sp e c if ic
rea sons. An adver se cr edibility finding must be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt’s claim.” Sylla, 38 8 F .3 d at 92 6 ( c itatio ns omi tte d) ; see also Liti v. Gonzales , 4 11 F .3 d 6 31 , 6 37 (6 th Cir. 2005). The fa ctual basis for

the adve rse credibility deter mination in this case is an Apr il 30, 2003No. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 9 - Embassy Report that ca lls int o question a medical document and a n Albanian police cer

tificate that Petitio n er s u b m i tted in support of his asylum application. The Embassy Report identifies the investigator and his qualifications. He interviewe d Z eqir Duka, a corone r who de nied any rec ord of Petitioner, including the g enuinene ss and ac cura cy of an O ctober

25, 2000 cer

tificate that Petitioner used in his asylum application stating that he was tre ated f or wounds af

ter be i n g s t ru ck b y

hard objects at a

1991 demonstration. Petitioner submitted a re b u ttal affidavit signed by “L icense d F or e ns ic Phy sic ian” Z e qir Duka and statin g t hat Pe tit ion e r i nd e e d c omp la ine d o f t ho se inj ur ie s in 19 91 . E lse wh e re , th e de c laratio n is fr om a pr imary care do c tor

wi th a dif fe re nt s pe lli ng- “ Z e qir Dukaj” a nd a noticea

bly differ ent sig nature . The re cord the ref ore f ails to present a

n equivoca l
answe r to t h e k i n d o f d o ctor involved, the spe lling of his name and, importantly , whether he ca n
c or ro bo rate the pe rs e c uti on that Peti tio ne r cl a ims . Und e r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s, the re c or d c omp e ls
no c on c lus ion , in c lud ingthe on e tha t Pe tit ion er a dv anc e s: t

hat he re bu tte d th e Em

ba ssy Re po rt
. Be cause the appa

rent c ontradictions ar e mater ial and not adequately explained, there is substantial evidenc e to support the adve rse c redibility deter mination. Moreove r, the c ontradictions touch upon
a ce ntral compone nt of Petitioner’s asylum application: whether h e was beate n at a 1991 de mon str a tio n a

nd su bs e qu e ntl y

tr e a te d b y

a dis int e re ste d p art

y wh o c ou ld c or

ro bo ra te the c la im. The Embassy

Report also states that a

November

11, 2000 police ce rtificate documenting the
arr est of Petitioner’s son wa s false acc ording to an Albanian police off icial who stated in 2003 that no such cer

tificate was ever issued. Petitioner challeng es this portion of the re port as suspec t and
unre lia ble be c a us e it i s un c le ar w ho se state me nt t he re po rt me mor ia lize d a

nd be c a us e no se pa

rate document or declar ation verify ing the repor

t was filed. Petitioner a lso argues that “[a] response byNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 10 - anyon e oth e r t

ha n th e pe rs on

wh o is su e d th e or ig ina l c e rt if ic a te is im mate ri a l.” B ut t he re sp on se
came from the dire ctor of the same district’s Police Commissariat, a hig h-ra nking of ficial who pr e su ma bly be ars re sp on si bi li ty for a ll h is o ff ic e ’s re c or ds , a

nd no t ju st t ho se tha t he pe rs on a lly issued. Fur

ther, a fair r eadingof the re port prese nts no ambig uity ; the pol ice director, and not the
c on su lar inv e sti g a tor , de te rm ine d that Peti tio ne r’ s ce rt if ic a te wa s n ot a

uth e nti c . A t th e ve ry

le a st, the Embassy

Report ra ises questions about the pol ice certificate t hat undercut the re liability of key evidenc e pre sented to support Petitioner’s cl ai m t h at his son was also deta ined by Albanian authorities. Ag ain, the re cord c ompels no conclusion in either d i re ct ion, including whe ther Pe tit ion e r r e bu tte d th e Em ba ssy Re po rt
. Th e Sixth C ir c uit

ha s r e pe a te dly

he ld t hat su bmi ssi on of e venon e fr a

ud ule nt d oc ume nt i n
su pp or t of a ke y e le me nt o f a

n a sylu m cla im is “suf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination.” Selami v. Gonzale s , 4 23 F .3 d 6 21 , 6 25 (6 th Cir . 200 5) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; se e als o Y on go v . I NS , 35 5 F .3 d 27 , 3 3 ( 1s t Cir . 2 00 4) ; Ak inm ad e v . I NS , 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999). I n Selami , the petit ioner presented a false Albanian newspaper article purporting to identify him as an anti-Communist who was forc ed to flee the “Red Te rror ” of the Neo- Communi sts. 423 F.3d at 6 2 3 -24. The article in que stion appear ed in a diff ere nt format than the r est of the ne wspape r submitt ed and the L ibrary of C ong ress later verified t hat i t was a forg ery . Id. at 624. The pe titioner had no re buttal other than c laiming the matter was not centra l to his claim and that he wa s unawa re of the for g ery

beca use his fathe r sent him the ar ticle. Id. at 625-26. I n this case, the a lleg ed for g ed docume nts are not obviously false or so weakly

defe nded, but the matters c alled into question are just as central to t he asy lum claim. Furthe r, the Embassy ReportNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 11 - constitutes an ade quate qua ntum of evidenc e under t h e ap p l i cable standard of revie w. While a tribunal in the first instance might have made a differ ent cre dibilit y deter mination, the rec ord bef

ore this court does not compel a contra ry deter mination. We must there fore defe r to the judg ment of the imm ig ratio n ju dg e . A ll r e le va nt f a c tor s d o n ot p oin t in e xora bly to o nly on e po ssi ble c re dib ili ty deter mination. Finally , as explained below, the chang ed countr y conditions provide an indepe ndent and ade quate ba sis for the dec ision of the BIA. C. Cha nge d Co unt r y C ondi ti ons To c la im a sylum

pr ote c tio n, Pe tit ion e r m

us t demo ns tr a te that he is a re fu g e e a s d e fi ne d in 8 C.F.R. § 208.13. A re fug ee se eking asylum must demonstrate a well-founded f ear of future perse cution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) ( 2008). F or established c ases of past perse cution, a petitioner ha s
a presumption of a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution, but that presumption may be re butted. § 208.13(b)( 1). In this case, Petitioner claims that his political activities aimed at democratic ref orm
cause d him and his family to suffe r various forms of retribution. He alleg es t hat he suffe red a series of beatings a

nd detentions from a

bout 1990 until l ate 1999. Subsequent elec toral cha ng e and othe r deve lopments in Albania led to a ve ry differ ent
as s es s m en t by

the United States De partment of State in 2004. The 2004 country repor t found no p o li ti c a l killi ng s, noticeable improvement in Albania’ s human rig hts recor d afte r 1998 and a political
en v i ro n m en tgen er al l y

fr ee o f v i o l en ce an d

p o l i t i ca l i n t er fe re n ce s i n ce 2 0 0 0
. T h e i m m igr ati o nj u d ge
no te d th e se c ha

ng e s and ob se rv e d th a t th e y

wo uld c on tr ol even i f P e tit ion e r’ s c la im o f p a st perse cution was c redible. Petition er , acc ording to the BIA, did not “meaning fully addre ss” the chang ed countr

y conditions in his appeal. Indeed, Petitioner’ s brief to the B I A was silent on theNo. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 12 - i s s u e a n d h i s n o t i ce o f ap p ea l t o t h e BI A wa s i n co rr ec t b ec au s e i t s t at ed t h at t h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge relied o n gen er ally

chang ed countr

y conditions to discredit an otherw ise cre dible claim. The imm ig ratio n ju dg e a c tua lly a ssume d th e c re dib ili ty

of the c la im b ut found t

hat it wa s n on e the le ss untenable be cause the cha ng ed countr

y conditions rebutted any presumption of a well-founde d fea r of per secution. We furthe r note that the f irst immi gra t i o n judge expressly relied on a

n ear lier country repor t and upo n “conditions in Albania” when he g rante d asylum. Despite Petitioner’s objections, it was thus altog ether appropr iate for the s econd immig ration judg e to g ive due we ight to the updated c ountry

repor t and the new

conditions in Albania. Th e Sixth Cir c uit ha s pr e vio us ly re lie d up on Al ba nia ’s c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on di ti on s in aff irming the denial of a

n application for

asylum and withholding of removal. See Ndrec aj , 522 F.3d at 676. The c ourt reje cted c halleng es raising due proc ess conc erns, id . at 673, and que stioning the adver se credibility

deter mination of the immigration judge, id. at 674-76. Turning to the chang ed
co u n t ry conditions, the court re lied in part upon the pe titioner’s admission that he did not fear Albania today , but rather the possibili ty that the previous ruling party would retake power by forc e. Id. at 676. The c ourt noted the 2004 De partment of State Country Report, as we ll as a media r eport that the Democ ratic Par

ty of Al bania ha d won an e lection in Albania. Id. Ac c or din g to t he Sixth Cir c uit : Thus, on the basis of published repor ts of Albania’ s politi cal de velopment, we ha ve previously

stated that the c onditions i n Albania a re “ fundame ntally

chang ed,” and we cannot f ault the I J for rea ching the same conclusion. Given Ndr eca j’s admission that he can return to A lbania and his f ailure to show any rea l thr eat of i ndividualiz ed perse cution, we must ag ree with the I J that the cha ng ed countr

y conditions provide an indepe ndent basis for the I J ’s finding of a f ailure to show a

well-founde d fea

r of future pe rsec ution.No. 07-3490

Rranxburgaj v. Muk

asey

- 13 - Id. at 6 7 6 -7 7 (q u o t i n g Liti , 411 F.3d at 640). The most salient distinction in t his case is that Peti t i o n er c ontinues to ex press a vigor ous subjective be lief that he w ould be per secute d if returne d to Albania. B ut it is a distinction that makes
no dif fe re nc e in t

he ou tc ome , b e c a

us e a fear o f f

utu re pr os e c uti on

mus t be “ bo th s ub

je c tiv e ly g enuine and

objectively

rea sonable.” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 3 8 9 (empha sis added, citation omi tte d) . Pe tit ion e r “ c ann ot re ly on sp e c ulativ e c on c lus ion s or me re a sse rt ion s of fe ar o f p os sib le perse cution, but instead must offer rea sonably

specific information showing a re al threat of individual persec ution.” Mapouya , 487 F.3d at 412 (quotation omitt ed). I n this case, Petitioner’s s u b j ec t ive fe ar is g rounded w ithout ex ception in pre -2000 alleg ations. Since then, ac cordingto the evidenc e considered by the i mmigration judge, Petitioner’ s political party

has g ained e lectora l succe ss and the repr essiveness of the rulingpower s has subsided. There is, as other courts have held, simply no objective ba sis for Petitioner’s cur rent fe ar of

future perse cution. See H

oxhallari v. Gonzales , 4 68 F .3 d 1 79 , 1 87 -8 8 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 6) ; Tota v. Gonzales , 45 7 F .3 d 1 61 , 1 66 -6 8 ( 1s t Cir . 2 00 6) ; Shehu v. G onzales , 443 F.3d 435, 437- 38 (5th Cir. 2006). The streng th of this prece dent and the la ck of objective grounds for Petitioner’s subjective fe ar of future perse cution offe r the most compelling g rounds to aff irm the decision t o deny

Petitioner’s claim for asylum.

III . For the fore g oing r easons, we deny revie w of the de cision of the B I A.