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: 07a0191n.06 F iled: Marc h 12, 2007 No. 05-4633 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

TON IN SHK

RE LI , Petitioner , v. AL BER TO R . G ON Z AL ES , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, Respondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF A N ORDER OF THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: CO LE, CL AY , a nd G ILM AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. R. G UY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Tonin Shkreli petitions t his Court for revie w of a final orde r o f t h e Board of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) , aff irming a n I mmigration J udg e’s ( “I J ’s”) decision to deny Shkreli’s application for asylum, withholding of remova l, a nd protec tion unde r the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT” ). For the re asons set for th below, we DENY Shkreli’s petition for re view. I. BACKG ROUND Tonin Shkreli is a native and c itiz en of A lbania, who enter ed the United States on October 11 , 2 00 0 at B ro wn sv ill e , T e xas. Shk re li w a s b or

n in 19 80 in t he sma ll v ill a g e of

B zhe te , lo c a te d in

no rt he rn Al ba nia . Sh kr e li seeks a sy lum on the gr ounds that his family has endured fifty y ear s of persecution i n Albania owingNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 2 - to t he ir anti -c omm

un ist a c tiv ism

and , mo re re c e ntl y , th e ir

inv olv e me nt w ithAl ba

nia ’s De moc ratic Part y , w hic h r iva ls the c ountr y ’s Soc ia lis t Par

ty . L e ss c e ntr a lly , Sh kr e li a lso a sse rt s th a t hi s f a mil y has bee n perse cuted in co n n ec t ion with the prac tice of the ir Catholic faith. All four of Shkreli’s siblings now re side in the United States, and his sister, Albana Dokaj, has be en g rante d asylum here. Shkreli’s pare nts remain in Albania. Acc ordi n g t o Shkreli’s asylum application, his family ’s history of opposing Albania’ s communist dictatorship beg an with his g randf ather and g reat uncle. B oth were imprisoned and tortured f or their political a ctivities, a nd Shkreli’s g reat unc le was tortured to death in jail. Shkreli’s fathe r c on tin

ue d th e le g a c y

of anti -c omm

un ist a dv oc a c y , a

nd su ff e re d p e rs e c ution a s a

re su lt, inc lud inga

fi ve -y e ar i nc arc e ratio n at a pr iso n labor cam p wh e re he wa s r e g ula rl y be a te n. Th is detention pre vented Shkre li’s father from mee ting one of his daug hters, Shkre li ’ s s is ter, until she was almost six y ea rs o l d

. Shkreli’s brother s and sisters also par ticipated in Albania’ s pro-de mocra cy movement and wor

ked on beha lf of Albania ’s Democ ratic Par ty in the wake of communi sm’s

c oll a ps e . Sh kr e li’ s f

a the r a nd sis te r A lba

na were detai ne d a

nd be a te n in

c on ne c tio n w iththe ir participation in a demonstration following the 1997 elec toral victory of the Socialist Party

. Shkreli acc ompanied Albana to politi cal e vents that she attende d, b u t d u e t o a cog nitive dis a bil ity , he ha s nev e r be e n a poli tic a l ac tiv ist

. Shk re li’ s disa bil ity wa s bro ug ht ab ou t by an il lne ss he su ff e re d a s a ba

by , a pp are ntl y in c on ne c tio n wi th a n im mun iza tio n th a t w a s a dmi nis te re d to him

. Hi s p are nts so ug ht m e dic a l a ssi sta nc e , b ut w e re tur

ne d aw ay , all e g e dly a s re ta liatio n for the ir anti

communist sy

mpathies. I smail Sendi, a U.S. phy sician who examined Shkreli, opined in an unsworn le tte r t o th e I J tha t Sh kr e li f a lls wi thi n th e “ moderate r ang e of Me nta l Re tard a tio n” du e to a “ po stNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 3 - ence phaliti c co n d i t i o n, an illness he may have e x perie nced dur ing the first three y ear s of development.” When he re ache d s ch o o l age, Shkreli’s father tried to g et him admitted to a school that handles spec ial -n ee ds children, but Shkreli wa s rejec ted bec ause his father wa s considere d an

“ e ne m[y ] of

[the ] g ov e rnme nt. ” Hi s fa the r the n en ro lle d Shkr e li i n th e re g ula r s c ho ol, bu t Sh kr e li left af ter just four y ear s beca

use the tea cher s profe ssed their inability to educate him. Th e I J hel d a

me ri ts heari ngon

Shk re li’ s a sylum

a pp lic a tio n o n A ugus t 30 , 2 00 4. Shk re li called only

one witness to testify

on his behalf, his sister Albana

. Al ba na c on fi rm e d th e his tor

y of po lit ic a l pe rs e c uti on

tha t her fa mil y ha d s uf fe re d in Al ba nia due to their polit i ca l ac tiviti es. She also testified a bout her pa

rents’ ina bility to obtain medical tr e a tme nt f

or Shk re li w he n h e fe ll i ll a s a bab y and he r fathe r’ s uns uc c e ssf ul e ff or ts t o e nr oll Shk

re li in a spec ial-nee ds school. Albana testified that admittance to such schools require d the assistance of the g overnme nt and g iven her family ’s anti-communist backg round, they wer e pre cluded f

rom

rec eiving such help. Albana a lso elaborated upon a Decembe r 1998 episode, de scribed by Shkreli in his asy lum

a p p l i c a t i o n , t h a tp r o mp t e d

S h kr e l i ’ s f

a t h e r t o s e n d S h kr e l i an d A l b an a o u to f B z h e t e f o r t h e i r s a f e t y. Albana te stified that she and Shkre li were driving home from churc h one eveningwhen they wer e stopped by

five individuals. One of t h e fi v e wa s a man named Ramada n, an “inve stigator,”

acc ording to Albana, who spie d on the villag ers of Bzhete and repor ted on their ac tiviti es. The g roup beat Alba na and Shkre li and pushed Shkreli onto the g round, dislocating h i s ar m . They war ned Albana a nd Shkreli to quit speaking out on behalf of democrac y and the Catholic Church. The n theyNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 4 - stole the ca

r, for cing Albana a

nd Shkreli to walk the re st of the way home. The entire e ncounter lasted ten to twenty

minutes. After the attac k, Shkreli’s fathe r complaine d to the Demo c r a ti c Pa r ty a n d th e Ca tholic Churc h and the f amily beg an re ceivingdeath t hreats as well as kidnappingthreats directed at Shkreli’s y oung er sister, L iza. A few weeks later, at the e nd of De cembe r, Shkreli’s father took Albana and Shkreli to live with their aunt in L ezhe City , about a two- hour drive f rom Bzhete. Shkre li remained there until he left for the United States in October 2000. The I J denied Shkre li’s application for asy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the C AT i n ano r a l d e c is io nan n o u n c e d o nA u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 0 4

. T h e B I A a f f ir me d in a s u mm a ry opinion on November 29, 2005. Shkre li tim ely appea led. II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Stand ard of Review Where the BI A adopts the I J ’s re asoning in a summary dispositi on, we r eview the I J ’s decision t o deter

mine if the BI A’s affirmanc e should be uphe ld. De nk o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003). We revie w t he I J ’s deter mination under a substantial-e vidence standard suc h that we will not disturb the I J ’s finding s provided they are “supported by

rea so n ab l e, s u bstantial, and probative evidenc e on the rec ord considere d as a w hole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1 99 2) (q uo tin g 8 U .S. C. § 11 05 a (a )( 4) ) ; Namo v. Gonzales , 4 0 1 F

. 3 d 4 5 3 , 4 5 6 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. We will rever se only

if we f ind “that t he evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but indeed

c om pe ls it.” Rreshpja v. Gonzales , 4 2 0 F. 3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Kla witt e r v . I NS , 970 F .2 d 1 49 , 1 52 (6 th C ir . 1 99 2) ); Ou da v . I NS , 324 F.3d 445, 451 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (stating that anNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 5 - a sylum a pp lic ant m

us t sh ow“ that th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d w a s so c ompell ing that no re a so na ble fac tfinder c ould fail to find the re quisite persec ution or fea r of pe rsec ution”). B. Asylum C laim s Based on P olitical P erse cution Asy lum a pplications are revie wed under a two-par t te st. First, the I J must determine whe ther the petitioner qua lifies as a “ ref ug ee” within the me an ing of the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA ” ). 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (A ); Pe rk ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 620 ( 6th Cir. 1994). Second, the I J asks whethe r the pe titioner merits a fa vorable exercise of

discretion by

the Attorney

Gene ral. Id. The pe titioner bear s the burden of proof at both stag es. Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 88 F .3 d 9 41 , 9 50 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Klawi tter , 970 F.2d at 151). Th e I NAde fi ne s a

“ re fu g e e ” a s any

pe rs on wh o is un a

ble or un wi lli ng to re tur

n to his ho me country “bec ause of

perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on account of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42)( A). “ In order to demonstrate that he qualifies as a refug ee, an alien must establish either that he has suffe red actual past perse cution or t hat he has a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution.” Pilica , 3 88 F .3 d at 950 (c ita tio ns omi tte d) ; see also Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 ( 6th Cir. 2005). 1. Past Persecution Shkreli contends that he has presented suff icient evidenc e showing that he wa s perse cuted in Albania on ac count of his family ’s political a ctivism, a nd that the I J err ed in conc luding other wise. I n s up po rt , Sh kr e li p oin ts t o e vid e nc e of ha ra ssm e nt, imp ri so nme nt, an d to rt ure tha t so me of his fa mil y me mbe rs have e nd

ur e d as a re su lt of the ir

lon g -t ime pr o- de moc ra c y a dv oc a c y . Sh kr e li a lsoNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 6 - c ite s th e de nia l of

me dic a l tr e a tme nt t

hat le ft him me nta lly disa bl ed, the g ov e rnme nt’ s r e fu sa l to place him in a special-ne eds school, and the Dec ember 1998 incident i n which he and his sister wer e

a tta c ke d b y

a g ro up of pe op le on

the ir wa y ho me fr om c hurc h. Shk

re li a rgue s th a t th e I J fa ile d to consider this evide nce in the a g g reg ate, a nd instead improper ly conclude d that Shkreli had pre sented sufficie nt evidence of only a sing le instance of perse cution—the Dec ember 1998 attack—w hich the I J deeme d insufficient to g ive rise to a f inding of past perse cution. W e f i n d n o e r r o r i nt h e IJ ’ s i n t e r

p r e t a t i o no f

t h e e v i d e n c e . A s ani n i t i a l m a t t e r , t h e IJ acknow ledg ed that Shkreli’s de scription about the perse cution his family suffe red unde r Albania ’s communist reg ime is “consistent with the known country conditions a nd the Court would have no

re a so n to do ub t th is. ” Ho we ve r, Shk rel i “ c ann ot r e ly so le ly on the pe rs e c uti on

of his fa mil y

m em b er s t o qualify

for a sy lum.” Akhtar v. Gonzale s , 406 F.3d 399, 406 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ci or ba v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 2 3 F

. 3 d 5 3 9 , 5 4 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ) ( h o ld in g th a t p e ti ti o n e r , w h o w as not po lit ic a lly

a c tiv e , co uld no t est a

bli sh a we ll- fo un de d fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on on the ba sis of

the po lit ic a lly motivated murder of

his father ). In the absence of evidenc e showing “a pa ttern of pe rsec ution tied to [Sh kr e li] h ims e lf

,” we de c lin e to c on c lud e that th e a c ts o f p e rs e c uti on su ff e re d by Shk

re li’ s f a mil y can be i mputed to him. Id. (q u o t i n g Ge br e ma ria v . A sh c ro ft , 3 78 F .3 d 7 34 , 7 39 (8 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; see also Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2006) (af firming judgme nt that the petitioner had not e stablished past perse cution in c onnection with her fa mily ’s political involvement wher e her fathe r wa s jailed six times, her siblings we re shot, and othe r re latives wer e killed). On the s a me n o te , Sh kr e li ma y n o t o b ta in a s y lum ju s t b e c a u s e A lb an a ’ s a

p p li c a ti on for

a sylum wa s g ra nte d. F a vo ra

ble a dju dic a tio ns on

the a sylum

a pp lic atio ns of

e ve n im me diate fa

mil yNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 7 - members, however , is not dispositi ve of any petitioner’s a

pplication. Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 745 (af firming decision deny

ing w ithholding of re moval even wher e the petitioner’s siblings had be en grant e d a sylum ); Akhtar , 4 0 6 F

. 3 d a t 4 0 2 ( a f

f ir mi n g d e n ia l o f

a s y lum e v e nw h e r e th e p e titioner’s mother had be en g rante d asylum). Second, a r easona

ble fa ctfinder

would not be compelle d to make a f inding of perse cution ba se d o n th e ina

bil ity of Shk

re li’ s par e nts to obt a in ne c e ssa ry me dic a l a tte nti on

fo r h im w he n h e fe ll ill as a baby , or their inability to a rra ng e suitable schooling for him. The I J proper ly conclude d that Shkreli fa i l ed to adduce suff icient evidenc e docume nting these events a nd showing that they

oc c ur re d b e c a us e of his fa mil y ’s po lit ic a l a c tiv ism

. Ba sed on his o b s er v at i ons of Shkreli, Albana ’s testimony , and the letter from Dr . Sendi op ini ng that Shk

re li is mod e rate ly me nta lly re tard e d, the I J had no tr ou ble c on c lud ingthat Sh kr e li suffe rs from a c o g n it iv e im p a ir me n t. T h e I J a ls o c r e d it e d Sh kr e li ’ s a s s e rti o n th a t h e “ h a d an immuniz ation that went bad,” which led to his disability . ( Id. ) Ho we ve r, the I J fo un d tha t th e on ly evidenc e sug g esting that Shkreli was denie d medical tre atm en t ca me from Alba na, who did not testify that her br other wa s turned awa y from the hospital due to he r par ents’ political opinions. The I J als o f ound Al ba na ’s te sti mony that the g ov e rnme nt blo c ke d he r fathe r’ s e ff or ts to e nr oll Shk

re li in a spec ial-nee ds school insufficient to establish that this constitut ed per secution. As to both the medical a nd educa tional issues, the I J rea soned that Albana’ s testimony was inconclusive be cause , since she is only

two y ear s older than Shkreli, she would have be en too y oung at the time the re levant events oc curr ed to have observe d them first-hand; he r testimony , there fore , was he arsa y . ( Id. ) The I J did not err in conc luding that the la ck of corrobor ating documents i s fata l to Shkreli’sNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 8 - c l a i m o f p a s tp e r s e c u t i o nb a s e d

o n t h e d e p r i v a t i o n o f m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t an d e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o rtu n i t y. Al tho ug h c or

ro bo ratin g do c ume nts are no t ne c e ssa ry if an a sylum

pe t i t i o n e r i s de e me d c re dib le , th e ir

a bs e nc e may

g ive ri se to a fi nd ing that the pe tit ion e r ha s fa ile d to carr y his burd e n if

the do c ume nts

are “the ty

pe that would norma lly

be cr eate d or ava ilable in the par ticular c ountry

and [are]

acc essible” to the petitioner. Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 3 98 F .3 d 3 79 , 3 83 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . T he I J pro pe rl y

re a so ne d th a t Sh kr e li sh ou ld have ob ta ine d su pp or tin g a ff ida vit s fr om his pa

re nts , w ho pr e su ma

bly could have substantiated his alleg ations and linked the ha rm that befe l l S h k re l i t o the family ’s political vie ws. Shkreli does not a rg ue that he was rea sonably fore closed from o b taining

corr oborative te stimony

from his pare nts and, in any event, the re cord w ould likely belie any such contention: Albana te stified that she wa s last in contact with her pare nts just t wo or thre e months prior to Shkreli’s asylum hearingand that s h e h ad v i s i t ed them in Monteneg ro in 2002 or 2003. Thus, there is n o r e a s o n to th ink th a t Sh kr e li ’ s p ar e n ts w e r e o u t o f h is r e a c h f o r p u r p o s e s of compiling his asy

lum recor d. Finally , what re mains of Shkreli’s c laim of past per secution is the Dec ember 1998 attack up on Shk re li a nd Al ba na a s the y dr ov e ho me fr om c hurc h. Th e I J con c lud e d th a t th is w a s th e on ly in c id e n t s u

p p o rte d b y a d e qu a te e v id e n c e , b u t t h a t i t d id n o t r is e to th e le vel of pe r s e c u ti o n . We ag ree . “[P] erse cution” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A) “ require s more than a few isol ate d i nci den ts of v erba l h aras sm ent or i nt im id ati on , u nacco mp ani ed b y any ph y si cal pu ni sh men t, infliction of h ar m , o r s i gn ificant de privation of liberty .” Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir. 1998)

. “

Mikhailev itch ha s not be e n inte rp re te d a s ‘ su g g e sti ngthat phy sic a l pu nis hme nt i sNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 9 - in a ll c a se s sufficient

for f inding pe rsec ution.’” Gilaj , 4 0 8 F. 3 d at 2 8 4 (q u o t i n g Gj ok

ic v . A sh c ro

ft , 104 Fe d. Appx. 501, 505 (6th C ir. 2004). He re, Shkre li’s attacke rs beat him, dislocate d his arm, and stole the ca

r that he a nd Albana w ere driving in. Although odious, this single instanc e of violenc e does not compel a

finding that Shkreli was per secute d. I ndeed, our case s have require d a fa r more substantial pattern of inhumane treatment to show past persec ution. I n Gilaj , for e x ample, this Court

reve rsed the B I A’s deter

mination that the Albanian petitioner ha d not established past per secution wh e re sh e c re dib ly te sti fi e d that sh e wa s be a te n by po lic e and

thr e a te ne d w ithsu ff

oc a tio n a nd de a th during two forc ible sear ches o f her home; police depr ived her of nourishment duringa two-da y de te nti on ; sh e wa s th e vic timof a se xua l a ssa

ult or a tte mpt e d s e xua l a ssa

ult ; and sh e and he r f a mil y

wer e subjec ted to numerous death threats, as rece ntly as a month prior to flee ing Albania. 408 F .3d at 279-81. Si m ilarly , in Ouda , we he ld that the evidenc e compe lled a finding of past per secution wh e re the Pa le sti nia

n p e tit ion e r c re dib ly

te sti fi e d th a t in

Kuwa it h e r f

a mil y wa s d e nie d b asic

nece ssities, such as the rig ht to buy food and water ; he r fathe r was prohibited from working ; she and her f amily could not leave their home be cause arme d bands o f men roa med the stree ts abusing Palestinians; and she and he r fa mily wer e orde red to lea

ve Kuwa it. 324 F.3d at 448-49. Shkreli’s claim rests on far less sever e cir cumstance s than those pre sented in Gilajand Ouda

. T h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o tc o mp e l a c o n c l u s i o nc o n t r ar

y t o t h a tr e a c h e d

b y t h e I J. 2. Future Persec ution We now t urn t o the questi on of whether S hkreli has established a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rs e c uti on . I f an a sylum a pp lic ant e sta

bli sh e s pa st pe rs e c uti on , it is pr e su me d that he ha s a we llfoun d ed fe ar o f future pe rsec ution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). T he Gove rnment may rebut thatNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 10 - presumption, howeve r, by showing by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidence either (1) that there has bee n a funda mental cha

ng e in country

conditions such that the a

pplicant no long er ha s a we ll-founded f ear of beingperse cuted, or (2) that the applicant could avoid future perse cution by reloc ating to another part of the applicant’ s home country . 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1)(i). A petitioner may

still be ab l e t o show a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution even if he has fa iled to establish past perse cution. To do so, the p et i t i o n er m ust show that (1) he f ear s perse cution in his home country on acc ount of race, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular social g roup, or political opinion; (2) there is a r easona ble possibilit y

of suffe ring such per secution if he re turned to t h at co u n t ry ; an d (3) he is unable or unwilling to return be cause of such f ear . 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 2). “Awell-foun d ed fear of perse cution thus has both a subjective a nd an ob je c tiv e c omp on e nt: an a lie n mu st a c tua lly fear tha t he wi ll b e pe rs e c ute d u po n r e tur n to his country , and he must pre sent evidenc e esta blishing an obje ctive situation under whic h his fear can be dee med re asonable .” Pilica , 388 F.3d at 950 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed). As an initial matter, Shkreli pre dicated his futur e-pe rsec ution claim before the B I A, and now befor e this Court, exclusively on the proposit ion that he esta blished past perse cution and ther efor e is entitled to a presumption of having a well-founde d fea r of future per secution. Consequently , even if Shk re li d id p re ss b e fo re thi s Co ur t a futur e -p e rs e c uti on

c la im unte thered to a

fi nd ingof

pa st perse cution, we would be jurisdictionally barr ed fr om consideringit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ( “A court may

revie w a f

inal order of re moval only

if . . . the alien ha s exhausted all administrative

re me die s ava ila

ble to t he a lie n a s of ri g ht

. . . . ” ); Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 641 ( 6th Cir. 2005). As descr ibed above , substantial evidence supports t he I J ’s conc lusion that S hkreli has notNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 11 - established past pe rsec ution. W e ther efor e cannot presume that Shkreli has a we ll-founded f ear of futur e pe rs e c uti on . E ve n if su c h a pr e su mpt ion

we re wa rr ante d, ho we ve r, the I J d id no t e rr in ho ldi ngthat th e Go ve rnme nt h a s su c c e ssf ull y re bu tte d it

. First, the Govern m en t submitt ed State De partment c ountry repor ts which explain that modern-da

y Albania doe s not ex hibit si g ns of political and re ligi o u s p er s ecution. Sterkaj v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 273, 276 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (re ly in g o n State Depa rtment country

repor ts for Al ba nia in d e nyingthe a sylum

a pp lic ant’ s p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w) ; Mu lla i v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F.3d 635, 639 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Kok aj v . A sh c ro

ft , 100 Fe d. App’x 506, 508 (6th Cir. 2004)) (c hara cter izi ng S t at e D ep ar t m en tre p o rt s as “ge n er al l y t h e b e s t s o u rc e o f i n fo rm at i o no nco n d i t i o n s i nfo re i gn nations”). Th e State De pa

rtme nt’ s 2 00 4 “ Pr of

ile of As y lum Cla ims a

nd Country Con dit ion s”

a c kn ow le dg e s t

h a t d u ri ngmuc h o f t

he tw e nti e th c e ntu

ry , A lba nia ns su ff e re d und e r a

n “ e xce pti on a lly

re pr e ssi ve and

idi os y nc ratic Com mun ist

re g ime .” Ho we ve r, the re po rt g oe s on to state that A lba nia has made steady

prog ress towa

rd instituti onalizing democr atic norms sin ce the collapse of communism beg inning in 1990. Albania experience d a tumultuous and violent period in 1997-1998 provoked by

an ec onomic collapse, but ha s rebounde d both politically and ec onomically

since then. The re port states that “the available evidenc e sug g ests that neither the Go vernme nt nor the major political parties eng ag e in policies of abuse or coer cion ag ainst their political opponents . . . [and] the re are no ind ic a tio ns of sy ste mic po lit ic a l pe rs e c uti on in A lba nia a t th e pr e se nt t ime .” I nd e e d, thi s Court has expressly

held that circ umstances in Albania do not support asy lum-seeke rs’ c laims that they will be perse cuted if f

orce d to return. Macotaj v. G onzales , 424 F.3d 464, 465 (6th Cir. 2005)No. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 12 - (s ta tin g that “de sp ite wh a te ve r pol iti c a l re pr e ssi on [pe tit ion e r] a

nd his fa mil y may have su ff e re d in the past, conditions in Albania have chang ed to such an extent that [ petitioner] no longer has re ason to fea r per secution upon re turn to his homeland”). F urthermor e, Shkreli’s pa rents have continued to reside in Albania

and Shkreli has not introduce d any evidenc e indicatingthat they have be en subjected to ong oing hara ssment or abuse due to the ir political opinions. These fa ct s u n d ermine Shkreli’s claim for

asylum. Gu mb ol v. IN

S , 815 F.2d 406, 413 ( 6th Cir. 1987) (noting, a s support fo r t he c on c lus ion

tha t pe tit ion e r h a d n ot e sta

bli sh e d f utu re pe rs e c uti on , that pet it ione r’ s f a mil y continued to live in I raq, “ appar ently unharme d”). Second, the Gover

nment also has re butted the pre sumption of future per secution by pointing to evidence that shows that Shkreli could avoid any p ro b lems by residing in a diffe rent pa rt of Albania f rom wher e he g rewup. Following the Dec ember 1998 attack on Shkre li and his sister, Shkreli’s fathe r took the two to live with their aunt in L ezhe City , l o ca t ed ab o u t a two-hour drive fr om B zhe te . Sh kr e li l ive d th e re fo r mor e tha n a y e ar- and -a -h a lf be fo re c omi ng to the Un ite d St a te s. T h e r e i s n o r e c o r d

e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g t h a th e e x p e r i e n c e d an y d i f f i c u l t i e s w h i l e l i v i n g i nL e z h e C i t y. Shk re li c ha lle ng e s th is r e a so nin g by arguin g that it is imp ro pe r to c on c lud e that he c ou ld l ive sa fe ly elsewhe re in Albania because there is equally no evidenc e showing t hat he did not suffe r per secution in L ezhe City

. This a

rg ument is meritless. Shkreli bore the bur den of e stablishing his elig ibilit y for

a sylum . T he I J pro pe rl y

ba se d h is c on c lus ion

on wh at th e e vid e nc e de mon strated , n ot, a s Sh kr e li would have it, on what it did not demonstrate. C. Asylum C laim s Based on Religious Pe rsec ution As a subsidiary

issue, Shkreli asserts in his asylum a pplication that his family

also suffe redNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 13 - perse cution on acc ount of their Catholic fa ith. Religious exercise wa s p rohibited under the Communi st reg ime, but Shkre l i ’s fa t h er worke d to open Catholic churc hes. In 1990, Shkreli’s fathe r, un c le , a

nd br oth e r w e re arr e ste d a

nd tor tur e d a ft e r br ing ing a pr ie st to the ir vil la g e to c e le br a te mass. Albana testified that the Dec ember 1998 attack upon her a nd Shkreli occur

red a s they

wer e coming home from c hurch a nd that their attac kers instructe d them “not to speak out” a bout relig ion. She also vag uely

testified that her

family experience d “proble ms” due to their “ relig ious activity .” For the same rea sons that Shkre li ha s failed to e stablish pa st pe rsec uti o n an d future perse cution in connec tion with his family ’s pol itical activism, he has f ailed to establish per secution in c on ne c tio n with the ir re lig ion . H e ha s n ot a de qu a te ly c or ro bo ra te d h is a lle g a tio ns wi th a ff ida vit s fr om h is p are nts or

oth e r s ibl ing s; o the r t

ha n th e De c e mbe r 1 99 8 e nc ounte r, wh ic h is ins uf fi c ie ntl y

sever e to g ive rise to a f

indin g o f persecution, he ha s not shown a patter n of har assing or abusive inc ide nts targ e te d at hi m; a nd he ha s n ot c on tr a dic te d th e State De pa rtme nt’ s c on c lus i o n

that A lba nia i s a r e l i g i o u s l y

t o l e r an tc o u n t r

y . W e ar e t h e r e f

o r e n o tc o mp e l l e d

t o r e v e r s e t h e f

i n d i n g s o f t h e I J. D. Hum ani ta r ian As ylu m Finally , Shkreli contends that eve n if he ha s not satisfied the standar d test for a sy lum elig ibilit y , he nonethe less should be g ran t ed as y l um on humanitarian g rounds. A petitioner ma y qu a lif y fo r hum anit ari an asy

lum by sh ow ing (1 ) co mpe lli ng re a so ns fo r be ing un wi lli ngor un a ble to r e tur n to his ho me c ountr

y a ri sin g ou t of the se ve ri ty of the pa st pe rs e c uti on , or (2 ) that the re is

a re a so na ble po ssi bil ity

that he may su ff

e r oth e r se ri ou s har

m upon re mov a l to that c ountr y . 8 C.F .R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(A) & ( B)

. Shkreli cannot avail himself of these pr ovisions because this Court has held that to qualifyNo. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 14 - for a sy lum on humanitarian g rounds, the petitioner must show past per secution. Rr esh pja , 420 F.3d at 556. Althoug h 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(i i i )(B) make s no mention of past perse cution, as does subpart (A ), the J ustice Depa rtment has explained that subpa rt (B ) also is conting ent upon a showing of past perse cution. Se e Liti , 411 F.3d at 642 (commenting that the J ustice De partment ha s descr ibed the purp os e of su

bp art (B ) a s a

uth or izin g the g ra

nt of a sylum re lie f to pe tit ion e rs “ who have suffered pe rse c uti on in thepa st and who are at risk of future harm that is not related t o a prote cted g round”) (empha sis added). F or the re asons desc ribed a bove, Shkreli has not established past per secution and the re fo re his c la im f

or humanit ari an a sylum

a lso fa ils

. E. Withhol din g of Rem oval and P rote ction Under the CA T The I J also den ied Shkreli’s cla ims for withholding of r emoval and pr otection under the CA T. Shk

re li, ho we ve r, ha s not ch a lle ng e d the se po rt ion s of the I J’s de c isi on be fo re the B I A o r t

his Court . We the re fo re la c k ju ri sd ic tio n to con sid e r wh e the r the I J er re d a s to e ith e r i ssu e sin c e Shk re li did not ex haust his administrative reme dies by prese n t i ng them to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )( 1) ; Liti , 411 F.3d at 641. Furthe r, eve n if t h ey we re not jurisdictionally barr ed, Shkreli’s failure to raise them be fore this Court constit utes a wa iver. United States v. Layne , 192 F.3d 556, 566-67 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding t h at argume nts that are not r aised or that are not acc ompanied by fac tual and leg al support ar e dee med waive d). III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY Shkreli’s petition for re view of the BIA’s dec ision.No. 05-4633

Shkreli v. G onzales

- 15 -