2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-7-2006 

# Asl l a ni v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2707

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

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

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

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

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion " Asl l a ni v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 941. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/941T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni or U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge, U ni t ed * St at es C our t of A ppeal s for t he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIRC UI T Ca se N o: 05- 2707 IL IRJA N A SL LA

NI , Pe tition er v. AT TO RNE Y G EN ER

AL OF TH E U

NI TE D S TA TE S, Re spon de nt O n P et iti on f

or Re vie wof

aF ina l D ec isi on of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s BI AN o. A 79 4 30 0 28 Im m igr at ionJud ge : H onor ab le Ro sa lin d K . Ma llo y Subm itted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A .R. 34.1(a)

May 12, 200 6 Befo re: BARRY, SM ITH, andTASHIMA, Circuit Judges * (F ile d: June 7, 200 6) OP IN IO N O F T HE CO URT TASHIMA, Circuit Judge.1 The I J had jurisdiction und er 8 C. F. R. § 208 .2(b) and the BIA

ex erci se d app el la te juri sd ic ti on ov er t he IJ’s d eci si on un de r 8 C .F.R. § 1003 .1(b)( 3). W e have j urisdictio n to review a final order of rem oval und er § 24 2( a)(1 ) of

th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(1 ). See W ang v. G onzales, 405 F. 3d 13 4, 138 (3d Cir. 2005 ). 2 Il ir j anA sll an i ( “ A sll an i” ), anativ e an d c iti ze n of A lbania , se ek s r ev ie wof the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( “ BI A ”) or de r af fi rm ing an I m

m igr at ion Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) de nia l of

his appl ic at ionf

or a sy lum , w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, and protection un der the Convention Against T orture (“ CAT ”). For the r easons set fo rth be lo w, we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. 1

I. Asllani entered the United States with a f alse Italian passport on Dece m ber 24, 200 1, and i m

m ed iate ly appl ie d f or a sy lum , w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, and protection un der the CA T. A sllani claim ed that he left A lbania because he w as be ing pe rs ec ute d ona cc ount of his pol iti ca l be lie fs and h is m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup – hi s nu cl ear fam ily . R em ova l pr oc ee din gs w er e pr om ptl y initiated, and on Dece m

ber 25, 2001, A sllani was served w ith a notice to appear be fo re an IJ. A th i s r e mo v a l h e ar i n g , A s l l an i t e s t i f i e dth a th e h a de x p e r i e n c e dp r o b l e ms in Albania as a r esult of his m em bership in th e A lbanian Dem ocratic P arty . He te sti fi ed that hi s f athe r, sis te r, and s ist er ’ s hu sband w er e al l m em be rs of theAsllani explained that his political activities cons isted of assistin g as 2 a cam pa ignw orke r in the 200 1 m ay or al c am pa ignof aloc al D em oc ratic P ar

ty candidate. Although the candidate did not win, Asllani testified that she has continu ed her political activities. T here w as no testim ony that the m ay oral candi da te , or

any of he r oth er c am pa ignw orke rs , have suf

fe re d pe rs ec uti on a s a r e s u l to f th e i r p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i ty. 3 m ino ri ty D em oc ratic P ar

ty , and tha t he ha d su ff

er ed pe rs ec uti on at the hands of th e m ajor it y

So ci al is t Pa rty. In s up po rt o f th is cla im , Asl la ni cit edtwo in ci de nt s. 2 Fi rs t, A sll an i c la im ed

that he w as not

a llo w ed to vot e in the e le ct ion s of 200 0 be ca use he w as am em

be r of the D em oc ratic P ar

ty . H ow ev er , A sll an i acknowledged that he wa s not registered to vot e and his party m em bership card ha d e xp ire d. Se co nd , Asl la ni tes ti fie d t ha t o n Oct ob er 2 1, 2 00 1, fo urun kn own m en entered his hom e and severely beat him . Asllani further te stified, howe ver, that he did

not kno ww hy

the y be at him and a ll the y

sa id w as that the y

w oul d re tur n. A sll an i l at er

c onc lud ed

that the y m ust have be enm oti va te d by

the ir op po si ti on to hi s p ol it ic al be li efs . A sll an i pr oduc ed

an A lbanian po lic e re port, w hic h w as a dm itt ed int o evidence, descr ibing the Oc tober 2001 incident. T he docum ent indicated that an investig ation was underway and that Asllani and his fam ily we re under police watc h, b utth atth e p ol ic e co ul d n otgu aran te e th atth is ev en t wo ul d n otrecu r. In addition , the I J consid ered the S tate D epartm ent profile on Albania, dated4

May 200 1, w hic h r ep orte d th at the D em oc ratic P ar

ty w as r ec ogni ze d by

the gove rn m en t and p ar

tic ipate d inm ost

parl iam en tary

a ct ivi tie s. T he pr of

ile a lso state d th at

the 200 0 natio na l e le ct ion s w er e re porte d to be c al m and o rd er ly , and w er e ge ne ra lly

f re e an d f ai r. Ale tte r fr om

the S tate D ep ar

tm en t date d M ar ch31, 2 0 0 3 , h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e dth a tth e D e mo c r a t i c P arty d i dc r e d i b l y r e p o rts o me incidents o f hara ssm ent of its m em bers in 2001 and som e politically -m otivated dism issals from

positi ons with the gov ernm ent in 200 1, but there w ere no such re ports f or 200 2. T he le tte r al so i ndi cate d th at the A lbanian go ve rn m en t ge ne ra lly re spe ct ed c iti ze ns’ r igh t of

a sso ci at ion . As l l an i al s o s o u g h tt o i n tro du ce a c o p y o f ace rt i fi ca t i o no f A s l l an i ’s m em be rs hip in the D em oc ratic P ar ty , ac opy of his pur porte d m em

be rs hip c ar d, an d ho spi ta l r ec or ds d es cr ibi ng the e xte nt o f his inj ur ie s st em m ing f ro m the Oc tober 2001 incident. T hese docum ents, however , w ere excluded from evidence by the IJ b ecau se th ey

co ul d n otbe pro pe rly aut he nt ic at ed . Insup port of

his se co nd b as is f

or r el ie f, A sll an i t es tif

ie d th at w hil e in A lbania he w as pe rs ec ute d f

or the c ri m ina l a ct ivi tie s of one of his sis te rs . A sll an i claim s that this persecution resulted from his m em bership in a particular social gr oup – hi s f

am ily . A sll an i’ s si ste r ha d be enc onvi ct ed of de fr au din g vari ous ind ivi dua ls try ing to obt ai n vi sa s. A sll an i t es tif ie d th at an A lbanian c ust om

ofA cc or din g to A sll an i, his br oth er w as not targ et ed be ca use onc e y ou 3 are m arri ed , y ou are n o l on ge r co ns id eredpa rt o f th e fam il y tre e. 5 “blo od f eu ds, ” m eant tha t a s th e sol e unm ar ri ed son , he w as targ et ed

f or re tr ibu tio n by

the f am ili es of his sis te r’ s vi ct im s. H e te sti fi ed that the tr ad iti on i s to t ar ge t the m al e of

the f am ily , and tha t he w as c onsi de re d th e m al e of the f am ily because his father w as decease d and he was the only rem aining u nm arrie d m ale. 3 A sll an i f urthe r te sti fi ed

that hi s f am ily and h e ha d r ec ei ve d th re at s and de m an d f or paym en t f

ro m the f am ili es of his sis te r’ s vi ct im s, but

did not pr ovi de any spe ci fi cs r eg ar din g th e na tur e of the thr eats, the ir

se ve ri ty , the ir

f re que nc y , or w he n th ey

ha d be enm ad e. A sll an i a lso e xpl ai ne d th at he did not kno wif the atta ck he suf fe re d onO ct obe r 21, 200 1, w as m oti va te d by his pol iti ca l a ff

ili at ion s o r b y p e o p l e t a k i n g r e v e n g e a s ar e s u l to f h i s s i s t e r ’s f

r au du l e n ta c t i v i ty. T he May 200 1 S tate D ep ar

tm en t P ro fi le on A lbania

not ed that so m e cl an s in the northe rnportio n of

A lbania sti ll en ga ge d in“blo od f eu ds, ” an d no te d th at

the go ve rn m en t m ig htno t b e ab le to pro te ctth e ta rg et s o f th e feu d i n c ert ai n c as es . Although Asllani chara cterize d the threats against him as a “bloo d feud” directed at him to seek vengeance for his sister’ s crim es, A sllani also testi fied that he had pe rs ona lly

a ssum ed the le ga l ob lig at ionto re pay his sis te r’ s vi ct im s inor de r to have his sis te r’ s pr iso n te rm r ed uc ed f ro m f ive y ears to six m onths. A sll an i6

es tim at ed that he sti ll ow es atot al of $30 , 000 to v ar iou s in div idu al s. Af ter consideration of Asllani’ s testim ony and evidence, the I J denied A sll an i’ s c la im s f

or r el ie f, c onc lud ing that A sll an i’ s te sti m ony w as not c re dib le and that he had failed to establish sufficient evidence of past persec ution , or a lik el iho od o f futur e pe rs ec uti on. O n a ppe al , the BI Aa ff

irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n onl y “ ins of ar a s sh e fo und that the r es pond en t ha d no t satis fi ed the appl ic ab le bur de n of pr oof f or the r eque ste d f

orm s of r el ie f. ” T he BI Anot ed

that “ [e ] ve n if cr ed ibl e, [ A sll an i] f

ai le d onthi s r ec or d to e sta bli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on o r a w el lfo und fe ar

of f uture pe rs ec uti on. ” A sll an i no wappe al s f ro m the BI A ’ s de ci sio n affi rm in g t he IJ. II.

“ [W ] he n th e BI Aboth a dopt s th e fi ndi ngs of the I J and d isc uss es som e of the ba se s f

or the I J’ s de ci sio n, w e have auth or ity to re vie wthe de ci sio ns o f both th e IJ an d t he BIA.” He Ch un Ch en v. As hc ro ft, 3 76 F.3d21 5, 2 22 (3dCir . 20 04 ).

“ W e m ust up holdthe BIA ’ s factual f indin gs if they

are ‘ supp orted by

rea sonable, subs tanti al , and p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e. ’ ” L ie v. A shc ro ft , 396 F . 3d 5 30, 534 n. 3 ( 3d C ir . 200 5) ( quot ing I N S v. E lia s- Z ac ar ia s, 502 U. S. 478, 480 (199 2)). “ A deter m ination of w hether an asy lum applicant has suf fe re d f ro m ‘ pe rs ec uti on’ or

w he the r that i ndi vid

ua l ha s a‘ w el l- fo unde d f ear of7

pe rs ec uti on’ is fa ct

ua l and thus is e nti tle d to de fe re nc e. ” W an g, 405 F . 3d at 13 8 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . III . T he f ram ew ork un de r w hic h w e re vie wa dm ini str at ive de te rm inatio ns i s w el l e sta bli she d. S ec tio n 20 8( a) of the I N A , 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( b) , pr ovi de s th e A tto rn ey G en er al w ithdis cr et ionto gr an t a sy lum to a “ re fu ge e, ” w ithc er

ta in ex ce pti ons. I n ge ne ra l, a“ re fu ge e” is “ any pe rs on who i s ou tsi de any c ountry of suc h pe rs on’ s natio na lity . . . w ho i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or he rs el f of

the pr ote ct ionof

, that c ountry

be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, na ti on al it y , m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” INA § 101( a) (4 2) (A ); 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). A n a ppl ic an t ha s th e bur de n to es tabl is h t ha t h e fi ts wit hi n t hi s d efi ni ti on of r efu ge e. 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8.1 3( a). An applicant m ay

establish hi s refugee status byshowing either that he has be en subjec t t o p as t p ers ecu ti on or h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Se e H e Chun C he n, 376 F . 3d at 22 3- 24. T he pe rs ec uti on, how ev er , m ust be “ on a c c o u n to f

” o n e o f th e f i v e s t a tu t o ry b a s e s . 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( b ) . T h e S up r e me Court, in E lias-Za caria s, held that while an asy lum -seeker would not “ be expected to p ro vid e dir ec t pr oof

of his pe rs ec uto rs ’ m oti ve s, ” ne ve rthe le ss, sin ce the statut e8

m akes m otive critical, he m ust prov ide so me e vid en ce of m oti ve , dir ec t or ci rc um stanti al . E lia s- Z ac ar ia s, 502 U . S. a t 48 3- 84. I n a ddi tio n, in or de r to o bta in re ve rs al of

the BI A ’ s de te rm inatio n, the a sy lum -s ee ke r m ust sho wthat the ev ide nc e he pr es en te d w as so c om pe lli ng tha t no r ea sona

ble f ac t- fi nde r co uld

f ai l to fin d t he requi si te fearof p ers ecu ti on . Id. Wh i l e th e d e c i s i o nt o g r an to r d e n y anap p l i c an ta s yl u m i s d i s c r e t i o n ary,

“ the Attorney

Ge neral m

ust grant withhol ding of rem oval if the alien dem onstrates a ‘ cl ear pr oba

bil ity ’ that, upo n r et

ur n to his or

he r hom e co untry , his or he r ‘ lif e or f r e e d o m wo u l db e th r e a t e n e d ’ o na c c o u n t o f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or pol iti ca l op ini on. ” H e Chun C he n, 376 F. 3d at 22 3 ( ci tatio n om itt ed ). “ A n a lie n who f ai ls t o e sta

bli sh tha t he or

she ha s a w e l l - f o u n d e df e ar o f p e r s e c u t i o n , s o a s t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r ag r an to f

a s yl u m, ne ces sa ril y

wil l fa il to est ab li sh th e ri gh t t o wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al .” Id . U nde r the CA T , an a

ppl ic an t i s e nti tle d to w ith hol din g of r em ova l i f he es ta bli she s th at

“ it is m or e lik el y

than no t tha t he or

she w oul d be tor

tur ed if re m ove d to the pr opos ed

c ountry of r em ova l. ” 8 C . F. R. § 12 08. 16( c) (2 ). T he regulation defines torture as “ any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether phy sic al or

m en ta l, is int en tio na lly

inf lic te d” by apub lic of

fi ci al f or c er ta in pu rp os es . 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .18 (a)( 1) .9 A. A sll an i arg ue s th at

the I J im pr ope rl y e xc lud ed se ve ra l do cum en ts f

ro m ev ide nc e that w oul d have c or ro bor at ed his te sti m ony

a s to his c la im

of pe rs ec uti on. T he doc um en ts i nc lud ed am em be rs hip c er

tif ic at e fo r the D em oc ratic Party , a purported m em

bership card, and hosp ital records dem onstrating that A sll an i w as a tta ck ed

on O ct obe r 21, 200 1. A sll an i c ont en ds tha t the e xc lus ionof the se doc um en ts, and the I J’ s c or re spon din g de ci sio n no t t o c onsi de r the m in as se ssi ng A sll an i’ s c re dib ili ty , w as avio latio n of his due pr oc es s r igh t t o af ai r he ar ing . As l l an i ’s ar g u m en t s , h o we v er , a re un av ai l i n g . Ev en cr ed i t i n g As l l an i ’s te sti m ony and e vid en ce , A sll an i no ne the le ss f ai le d to m ee t hi s burd enof de m onstratin g th at

he w as pe rs ec ute d on a cc ount of astatut or ily -p ro te ct ed

gr ound because he w as unable to tie any alleged persecution to his political beliefs. S ee Part I II( B), infra. In fa ct, both the IJ’ s and the BIA ’ s reasoning tu rned on the fact that A sll an i w as una

ble to de m onstrate that any of the vio le nc e or

hara ssm en t he suf fe re d w as ar es ult

of his pol iti ca l a ff

ili at ion s, and n ot o n ala ck of c or ro bor at ing ev id en ce. M o re o v er , t h e p o s s i b i l i ty th atth e I J m ay n o th av e c re d i t edAs l l an i ’s testim ony is rendered m oot bythe BIA ’ s opin ion, in which it aff irm ed the IJ even10

assum ing th e cr edibilit y

of A sslani’s testim ony . See He Chun Chen, 376 F.3d at 226 (explain ing th at rem and to the BIA is inapprop riate where e xcluded doc um en ts d id n ot a ff

ec t the f ac ts and e vid en ce upo n whic h an a ge nc y ’ s de ci sio n is b as ed ). A cc or din gly , be ca use A sll an i f

ai le d to de m onstrate that any pe rs ec uti on he suffere d was on acc ountof his poli tical beliefs, and because the BIAcre dited A sll an i’ s te sti m ony

thu s r en de ri ng h is arg um en t m oot , w e re j ec t this arg um en t. B. A sll an i arg ue s th at

the a dve rs e fi ndi ngs of

the BI Aand the I J are not supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce be ca use ( 1) the I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing wa s erroneous, and (2) he satisfied his bu rden of establishing that he suffere d pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of his pol iti ca l be lie fs and b ec au se of his m em be rs hip in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . In sof ar a s A sll an i arg ue s th at

the I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing w ar

rants reversa l, his claim

is m oot. A s discuss ed in Part I II( A) , supra, the BIAcre dited Asllani’ s testim ony

and affir m ed the IJ’ s decision o n the groun d that Asllani failed to s at isf y the appl ic ab le bur de n of pr oof . T he re fo re , be ca

use the BI A ’ s de ci sio n w as not ba se d onthe I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing , w e re

j ec t this arg um en t. Asllani’ s argum ent that he suffere d persecution on account of his poli tical be lie fs f ind s li ttl e supp ort i n th e re co rd . T he onl y e vid en ce A sll an i of

fe re d w ith11

re gard s to the a lle ge d pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of his pol iti ca l be lie fs w as te sti m ony that he w as pr ev en te d f

ro m vot ing in the 200 0 e le ct ion , and t es tim ony r eg ar din g an incident where f

our unkn own assailants attacked him in his ho m e. H owever , Asllani is unable to carry his burden o f dem onstrating that these incidents were

“ on account of” his po litical views. See Lie , 396 F. 3d at 535 (finding that pe tit ion er ’ s te sti m ony

r eg ar din g ar obbe ry

in w hic h hi s atta ck er s us ed an e thn ic sl urin su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f pe ti ti on er’s p ol it ic al vi ews orna ti on al it y ). A sll an i’ s te sti m ony

de m onstrate s th at

the vot ing inc ide nt w as li ke ly ar es ult of Asllani’ s failure to re gister in his p articular district, and the fact that he w as atte m pti ng t o us e ane xpi re d vo te r ID c ar d. I n a ddi tio n, w ithr eg ar ds t o th e assault, A sllani testified that th e attacker s m ade no m ention o f why they attacked him , nor did he have any

w ay of kno w ing w he the r the a ssa ult w as m oti va te d by the a tta ck er s’ dis ag re em en t w ithhis pol iti ca l be lie fs . F ina lly , the re w as no te sti m ony r eg ar din g any

a lle ge d pe rs ec uti on o f any of A sll an i’ s f

am ily m em be rs , orot he r cam

pa ig n wo rk ers , who were al so m em be rs of t he Dem oc rat ic Part y . Ba s edo nth es e f

ac t s , t h er e i s s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce t o s up p o rtth e B IA ’s an dth e I J ’s de ci sio ns. A cc or din gly , w e re j ec t this arg um en t be ca

use A sll an i ha s f

ai le d to de m onstrate that the e vid en ce he pr es en te d w as str ong en oughto co m pe l a12

co ntr ar y c onc lus ion . S ee E lia s- Z ac ar ia s, 502 U . S. a t 48 3- 84 ( expla ini ng tha t i n or de r to o bta in r ev er sa l of the BI A ’ s de te rm inatio n, an a sy lum -s ee ke r m ust sho w that the evidence he presented wa s so com pelling that no reasonable fact- finder co uld f ai l t o f ind the r equis ite f

ear of pe rs ec uti on) ; W an g, 405 F . 3d at 13 8 (“ Co ngr es s ha s di re ct ed

us t o tr eat the BI A ’ s f

ind ing s of

f ac t a s c onc lus ive ‘ unl es s an y re as o n ab l e a d

ju d i ca t o r w o u l db e c o m

p el l edt o co n cl u d e t o th e c o n tra ry.’” (citations om itted)). A sll an i a lso arg ue s th at

he ha s su ff

er ed pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of his m em bership in a particular social group – hi s fam ily . This argum ent, howe ver, also finds lit tle suppo rt in the recor d. A lthou gh Asllani alleges that he has been th e t ar g eto f a“b l o o dfe u d ” a s a r es u l to f h i s s i s t er ’s fr au du l en tac t i v i ty, As l l an i ’s t es t i m o n y d o es n o tes t ab l i s h an y ev i d en ce o f p er s ec u t i o n . Atb es t , As l l an i ’s te sti m ony ind ic at es that the O ct obe r 21, 200 1 atta ck m ayhave be enm oti va te d by the a lle ge d “blo od f

eu d. ” H ow ev er , A sll an i ha s te sti fi ed that he did

not kno whis attackers, and that he did no t know why they attacked him . The only

other ev ide nc e A sll an i of

fe re d r eg ar din g a lle ge d pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of his m em be rs hip in his f

am ily w as that he and h is f

am ily ha d r ec ei ve d th re at s and de m an d f or paym en t f

ro m the f am ili es of his sis te rs ’ vic tim s. H ow ev er , A sll an i d i dn o tp r o v i d e an y s p e c i f i c s r e g ar d i n g th e n a tu r e o f th e th r e a t s , th e i r

s e v e r i ty,13

the ir f re que nc y , or

w he n th ey

ha d be enm ad e, and the re fo re f ai le d to c ar

ry his bu rd en of d em on st rat in g t ha t h e was pe rs ecu te d. Se e Li v . Att orne y Gen. o f U.S., 400 F.3d 157 , 167 (3d Cir. 2005 ) (def ining persecution as “ ‘ threats to life, confinem ent, torture, and econom ic restric tions so severe that they constitu te a threat to life or f

reedom ’ ” (quoting Fatin v. IN S, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993 ))) . Ac cordingly , bec ause the IJ’ s and BIA ’ s factual deter m ination s wer e supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce , and A sll an i ha s f ai le d to m ee t hi s burd enof es ta bli shi ng tha t the e vid en ce c om pe ls a f ind ing that he w as pe rs ec ute d, or ha s a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on , see Eli as -Zaca ria s, 5 02 U.S. at 4 83 -8 4, we re j ec t this arg um en t. C. Be ca use A sll an i ha s f

ai le d to m ee t hi s burd ento es ta bli sh e lig ibi lity

f or as y lum , he a lso ne ce ssari ly f ai ls t o satis fy

the hig he r standard

r equir ed f or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. S ee H e Chun C he n, 376 F . 3d at 22 3. I n a ddi tio n, A sll an i ha s no t e sta

bli she d th at

“ it is m or e lik el y

than no t tha t he . . . w oul d be tor tur ed if re m ove d to the pr opos ed

c ountry of r em ova l, ” as r equir ed

f or r el ie f unde r the CAT . 8 C.F .R. § 1208 .16(c) (2). While there is evidence that A sllani owes several indiv iduals m oney , ther e is no evidence in the record to indicate that it is m ore li ke ly tha n n otth atAsl la ni wou ldbe to rtu redif h e returne d t o Al ba ni a.14 IV . Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , A ssl an i’ s pe tit ionf or r ev ie wis DENIE D.