The Honor able Arthur L . Alarc ón, Senior J udg e, United States Court of Appe als for the * Ninth Circuit. 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: 06a0687n.06 F iled: Septem ber 12, 2006 No. 05-3873 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
L I Z A V U K T I L A J; L A U RA V U K T I L A J, Pe tit ion e rs , v. AL BERTO R. GO NZ AL ES, A TTORNEY G E N E RA L, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O N P ETI TI ON FORRE VI EW OF A DECI SI ON OF TH E B O ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be fore : GUY and SUTTO N, Circuit J udg es; and ALARCON, Circuit J udg e. * PER C URI AM. L iza Vuktilaj and her daug hter, L aura Vuktilaj, a re natives and citizens of Albania. They seek revie w of a decision by an I mmigration Judge (af firmed without opinion by the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls) denying their application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval and relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture. T he I J found t h at L i z a Vuktilaj’s testimony lacke d
c re dib ili ty

and that sh e (and h e r d a

ug hte r) ha d f

a ile d to e sta

bli sha c og niza ble c la im o f p a st perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. W e ag ree and deny the petition. I. Vuktilaj alleg es that m e mb e r s a n d s y mp a th iz e r s o f th e Albanian Communist P arty perse cuted he r a nd he r f a mil y fo r su pp or

tin g the De moc ratic Part y . A c c or din g to h e r t e sti mony , s he fi rs tNo. 05-3873

Vuktilaj, et al. v. Gonzales

- 2 - beca me af filiated with the De mocratic Party in 1989 while s he was a student in Shkoder, Albania
. I n Shkoder, she wa s a g ener al member of the p ar t y an d participated in political demonstrations. After g raduating in 1992, she returned to her home in Ver mosh and bec ame the pa

rty ’s sec reta

ry for her villag e of 1,000 pe ople. On J une 11, 1997, unidentified individuals destroy ed her home by setting it abla ze. No one
was e ver c harg ed with t he cr ime, but someone purpor tedly told her that the Communists were responsible for the act. Traumatiz ed by the destruction of her house , Vuktilaj cea sed her political inv olv e me nt; he r h

us ba nd , h ow e ve r, re ma ine d a c tiv e in p ro te sts —a de c isi on that, a c c or din g to Vuktilaj, led to severa l episodes in which police be at and mistreated him. Her c urtailmen t of her own political activity

cea sed with the S eptember 14, 1998, assassination of Democratic Party leade r Azem Hajdar i. Whi le protesting the assassination, Vuktilaj suf fer ed bruises whe n the police—using fo rc e to h a lt the tur

moi l th a t th e de mon str a tio n w a s c a us ing —b e a t he r a

nd oth e r p ro te ste rs . On Dec ember

25, 1999, Vuktilaj’s daug hter, who ha d been pla ying outside, c ame inside the house cr ying a nd told her mother that some pe ople had threatened to kidnap he r. The thr eate ning strang ers wa

rned the g irl that her pare nts “ have committed a big mistake . . . and they cannot, c annot g et rid of [the] consequenc es.” JA 80. On Marc h 20, 2000, at a r ally to cele brate the electoral victory of t he Democratic Party , her husband wa s beate n ag ain. And on Aug ust 5, 2000, Vuktilaj and her daug hter left Albania f or the United States. Attempting to e nter the U nited States with fraudule nt passports, they wer e ar rested at the borde r. Vuktilaj conc eded r emovabili t y , b ut petitioned for asy lum under § 208 of the I mmigration and Nationality Act, withholding of

remova l under § 241(b) (3) of the Act a

ndNo. 05-3873

Vuktilaj, et al. v. Gonzales

- 3 - withholding of r emoval under Article 3 of the Unit ed Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture. A fter identifying material inconsistenc ies in Vuk t i l aj ’s t estimony , the I J found that Vuktilaj was not
cre dible and had failed to mee t the requisite burde n of proof for a ny of her claims for r elief. See IJ Op. at 6 (de tailing the inc onsistencies in Vuktilaj’s attempt to qualify for asy lum). Vuktilaj appea led to the BIA, and the B I A af firmed without opinion.

II. When the BIA aff

irms a n I J ’s decision without issuing an opinion, we r eview the decision of the I J direc tly
. Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 3 98 F .3 d 3 96 , 40 1 (6t h Ci r. 20 05 ). An I J’s c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n mu st b e up he ld u nle ss a re ason a ble a dju dic a tor

wo uld be c omp e lle d to c on c lud e to the contra ry . Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 ( 6th Cir. 2004).

A. Th e Attor ne y Ge ne ra l ha s d isc re tio n to g ra nt a sylum to a n ali e n w ho is a

re fu g e e . 8 U. S.C. § 11 5 8 (b )( 1). “Ref

ug ee” status attache s to any person who is outside of the country of her
natio na lity

and wh o is un a

ble or unwi lli ng to re tur

n to that c ountr

y “ be c a us e of pe rs e c uti on or

a we llfounded fea

r of perse cution on acc ount of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a p ar t icular
so c ia l g ro up , or p oli tic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A) ; Singh , 398 F.3d at 401. The asylum applicant be ars the burden of demonstrating that she has suff ere d perse cution or has a

well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. Se e Pe rk ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 620–21 ( 6th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ). And t hat applicant may

satisfy that burden w ith her own testimony “whe re the testimony

is be lievable, consistent, and suff

iciently detailed to provide a plausible and cohere nt acc ount of the basis for [her] fea r.” Id . at 621 (interna l quotation marks omitted).No. 05-3873

Vuktilaj, et al. v. Gonzales

- 4 - I n this inst ance , the I J found that Vuktilaj’s testimony was not cr edible. While we afford such a f inding c onsiderable defe renc e, we still require it to be supported by specific rea sons. Sy lla

v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 ( 6th Cir. 2004). I f t he discre pancie s in the alien’s e vidence cannot be viewed a s attempts by the alien to e nhance her claims of perse cution, then the discre pancie s do not bear on the alien’ s cre dibilit y . Id . Minor and irre levant inconsistencie s thus cannot constitute the basis for a

n adver se cr edibility

deter mination . Id
. “F or the most part,” the I J deter mined, “the r espondent’s claim for political a sy lum ha s been deeme d not cre dible and also n o t p l au s i ble. I t appea red throug hout the testimony that as the responde nt was questioned about i nconsistencies or improbabilities that she bega n embellishing he r
a sylum c la im. ” I J Op. a t 11 . T he I J bas e d th is d e te rm inatio n o n s e ve ra l mate ri a l in c on sis te nc ie s, inc lud ingthe fo llo wi ng : ( 1) Vukti la j initi a lly de c lare d that she wa s ar re ste d but b y

the e nd of c ro ssexa m i n at i o n she ac knowledg ed that she ha d never been a rre sted, jailed or de tained but then later claimed that she had bee n detained twic e, only to distance he rself e ventually from that modified claim as we ll; (2) Vuktilaj’s testimony that she decide d to leave A lbania bec ause of the threat to her daug hter c onflicted with her statement at the border that she came to the United States to g et tog ether wi th h e r h us ba nd ; ( 3) Vukti la

j’ s te sti mony that sh e be lie ve d the Com mun ist s burn e d d ow n h e r h ou se conflict ed wi t h her state ment at the borde r that she did not know who de stroy ed her house; (4) Vuktilaj’s state ment at the borde r that she no long er ha d a home conflicte d with her testimony that the Catholic churc h helped he r t o rebuild her home; and (5) Vuktilaj’s explanation for her failure to mention any

instances of

perse cution at the borde r—that she wa s afr aid the information would ge t back to the Communists in Albania—did not square with her claim that she ca m e to the UnitedNo. 05-3873

Vuktilaj, et al. v. Gonzales

- 5 - States beca

use it is a true de mocra cy . Be cause these inconsistenc ies cut to the hea rt of her a sy lum claim and be cause the re cord suppor ts eac h i n co n s i s t ency , substantial evidence supports the I J ’s deter mination that Vuktilaj was not credible. Bolster ing this co n cl u s i o n i s t h e I J ’s o b s er v at i o n t h at Vu k t ilaj failed to produce any
co rr o b o ratingevidenc e, eve n though suc h evidenc e wa s rea sonably available
. See S

h k a b a r i v
. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 324, 331 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[E]ven when an a pplicant’s cr edibility

has not bee n questioned, the fa ilure to provide rea sonably available corr oborating evidenc e can lead to a finding that an applica

nt has failed to mee t her burde n of pro o f. ”) (i n terna l quotation marks omitted). Vukt i l aj , fo r example, did not produce a ny evidenc e to cor

roborate the alleg ed ac ts of violence ag ainst her a

nd her family
. That her pare nts, who s till reside in Albania, we re a ble to send Vuktilaj her D emocr atic Party

membership ca

rd demonst ra t ed that she could have obta ined other do c ume nta

ry e vid e nc e fr om h e r p are nts
. An d whi le Vukti la j pla c e d he r hus ba

nd on he r w itn e ss l ist , he did not testify at her he aring , and she c ould not ex plain why he did not testify

when the I J asked her a bout the omission. L astly , Vuktilaj never

showed that the A lbanian g overnme nt perse cuted her or a cquiesc ed in her pe rsec ution at t he hands of ot hers. I n particula r, she never c onnecte d the destruc tion of her home and the threat to her daug hter to a cts of the Alba nian g overnme nt, as opposed to the wa nton acts of third pa

rties. On this rec ord, the I J did not err in deny ing Vuktilaj’s asylum claim. B. Vuktilaj’s other a

rg uments may

be re solved quickly . First, to q u al i fy for withholding of
remova l, Vuktilaj bore the burden of showing “that there i s a clear probability that [she] would beNo. 05-3873

Vuktilaj, et al. v. Gonzales

- 6 - s u b j e c tt o p e r s e c u t i o ni f

[ s h e ] w e r e t o r e tu r

nt o [ A l b an i a ] b e c a

u s e o f h e r r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, membership in a particular social g roup, or political opinion.” Cas te lla no -C ha c on v . I NS , 341 F.3d 53 3, 54 5 (6 th Cir . 2 00 3) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) ; see also Singh , 3 98 F .3 d at 40 1; Liti v. Gonzales , 4 11 F .3 d 631 , 640 –4 1 (6t h Cir. 20 05 ). B e c a

us e the wi thh old ing -o f- re mov a l st and ard is “more stringe nt . . . than what is requir ed on a claim for a sy lum,” id . at 640 (interna l quotation marks omi tte d) , a

n a pp lic ant wh o fa ils to satis fy the “ we ll- fo un de d f e ar” sta nd ard fo r a sylum

ne c e ssa ri ly cannot de monstrate a “ clea r proba bility ” of f

uture pe rsec ution, id

at 641. Second, Vuktilaj’s due proce ss c laim—namely , that the B I A’s strea mlining proc ess violates due proc ess—is one that we have pr eviously reje cted. Se e De nk

o v . I NS , 3 51 F .3 d 717 , 729 –3 0 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (holding that “the B I A’s strea mlining proc edure s do not themselves alone violate an alien’s rig hts to due proce ss.”). We r ejec t the claim ag ain today
. See Lumaj v. Gonzales , — F.3d —, 2006 U.S. App. L EXI S 22640, at *3 n.1 (6th Cir. Sept. 6th, 2006). III For these re asons, we de ny

the petition for re view.