2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-7-2004 

# T r imi v . Att y Ge n U SA 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 . 02-4041

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive 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 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at 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 va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" T r imi v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 859. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/859NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ Nos. 02-4041 and 03-3126

____________ LID A T RIM I, Petitioner in No. 02-4041
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

____________ LID A T RIM I; KL OD IAN TR IMI, Petitioners in No. 03-3126
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

____________ On Petiti on for Review of an Order of t he Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (Board Nos. A78-212-724 and A78-212- 725)

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 1, 20041 The INS ceased to exi st and i ts functions were t ransfer red to t he Department of Homeland Securit

y, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforc ement effect ive March 1, 2 Be for e: A LIT O, F ISH ER and AL DI SE RT , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed : April7, 2004 )

____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________ FIS HE R, Circu it Judge
. Lida Trimi and her ele ven (11)- year old son Klodi an are both native s and citizens of Albania. They see k review of a fi nal order of removal i ssued by

the Board of Immigrat ion Appeals ( “BIA”). The BIA affirmed wit hout opini on the Immigr ation Judge’s ( “IJ”) May 31, 2001 deni al of their appl icat ion for as ylum and withholdi ng of removal under

the Immigr ation and National ity Act (the “ Act”), protect ion under t he United Nati ons Convention Agains t Tortur e and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatm ent or Pun ishment (“C onven tion”), an d app l i cat i onfo rvo l un t ar yde par t ur e. We hav e jur isdic tion to re view thes e co nso lidat ed p etitio ns p ursu ant to 8 U .S.C . § 12 52( b). Aft er co ns id er at io n of

th e r ec or d, we wi llde ny th ei r p et itio ns fo r r ev ie w. I. Background Lida and Klodian Tr imi fl ed Albania and ar rived in the Unite d States on September 24, 1999. Theyapplie d for asylum on February 5, 2000. On March 31, 2000, the Immigr ation and Naturali zati on Service ( “INS”) 1 commenced removal procee dings by200 3. See Hom eland Se curity Act, 116 Stat. 213 5, Pub. L . 107-296 § 441 (2 002). 3 issuing a Notice t o Appear chargi ng them for re maining i n the Unite d States beyond t he expiration of the ir vi sit or’s vi sas. They admit ted the alle gations in the Noti ce to Appear and conceded removabi lit y. Lida Trimi t

hen appli ed for asylum and withhol ding of removal, protection under t he Convention, and alt ernatively for volunt ary

departur e for hersel f and Klodian. The IJ denie d their

applic ations for asylum and withhol ding of removalunder the Act, reque sted r elie f under the Convention, and ordered t hem removed to Albania . The BIA affirmed the I J’s deci sion without opini on on October 4, 2002. On Novem ber 1, 2002, the Trimis s imult aneously file d a Petition for Revi ew with this Court and a Motion to Reconside r with t

he BIA, which the BIA denied. Trimi t hen fil ed a Peti tion for Review of the BIA’s deni al of the Motion to Reconsi der and moved to cons olidat e the Petitions, with the l atte r motion being granted. Lida Trimi c laims and t he IJ found t

hat she s uffered past

persecution under t

he former communist

Albanian gover

nment given her

anti- communist hi story . That finding was premised on Lida

Trimi’s test imony t

hat her f amily was inter

ned and became forced laborer s at t

he hands of the communist re gime. The fi nding of past persecution created a regulatory

presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. But the IJ also found that the INS effectively rebutted that presu mption thro ugh state de partmen t country report s. Those r eports refle cted fundament ally changed countr

y condi tions since t

he2 Because the I J’s fi nding that Lida Trimi s uffered past persecution under t

he communist re gime is not chall enged, we do not r ecit e the fact s rel evant t o that f inding as they are not necessar

y for the dis position of these peti tions. 4 over throw of the com mu nist reg ime. T he IJ a lso co nclud ed tha t the T rimis fa iled to produce evi dence of tor ture at the hands of t

he post- communist gover nment or any probabil ity

of future tortur e. The Trim is com plain th at the IJ e rred in findin g that sh e can safely retu rn to Alb ania giv en c han ged cou ntry co ndi tion s sin ce th e de cline of th e co mm uni st reg ime
. The yal so co nt en d tha t t he co unt ry re por t, st an di ng a lo ne , w as not su ff ic ie ntfo r t

he INS to me et its sub stantial b urde n of prov ing a f

und ame ntal ch ange in circu mstan ces to n egate the pre sum ption o f a w ell-fou nded fear o f futu re pers ecutio n. A review of the facts present ed at the immigrat ion hearing relevant to t his appealwill inform our dis cussion. 2 In 1991, Lida and her husband Irfan T rimi became mem bers of the anti-communist democrati c party . Ir fan Trimi par ticipated i n a democrati c party demonstration and was arrested and d etained for five (5) days. They both p articipated in the dem ocratic party’s
cam paign to defeat the com mu nist go vern men t. On M arch 2 2, 199 2, the d emo cratic p arty won the election unseating the c ommunist regime. During the r eign of the democrati c party , Lida Trimi became an active member of
an a sso ciatio n su ppo rting tho se p olitic ally pe rsec uted by the for me r co mm uni st reg ime
. In ad dition, h er hu sban d par ticipated in a gro up h ung er strike for the r eturn o f pro perty taken during the communist regime and was det ained by the poli ce for fort

y- eight ( 48)5

hours . S in ce th at

de te nt io n, Ir fa n Tr im i wa s c onc erne d f orth e we lf

ar e o f h is fa mi ly . A t the time of the June 29 , 1997 election (where the socialist party ultimately prevailed), socialist p arty mem bers v isited the Trim i’s hom e and threate ned th em w ith harm shou ld they fail to v ote fo r the so cialist pa rty. On the mo rning of the election , the T rimis receiv ed a n ote un der the ir doo r threate ning the kid napp ing o f K lodian shou ld they fa il to vote soci alis t. The pol ice offer ed no assi stance in respondi ng to the t hreats . In l ight of this , in Sept ember 1997 the Tri mi family went to Greece on a t

hree (3) month visa but
rema ined for on e year ou t of fe ar of r eturnin g to A lbania . The y ultimately retu rned to Prenjas when they were una ble to l egall y r emain in Greece
. Upo n their return to Prenjas, the police detained Irfan Trim i for five hou rs ques tioning his activ ities on b ehalf of the assoc iation o f the p olitically perse cuted . This instilled fear causing the m to m ove to G ramsh, A lbania, wh ere they believe they were under surve ill ance bythe soci alis t part y. Based on the for egoing, in September 1999 Lida Trimi depar

ted for t he United States wit

h her son Klodi an leavi ng behind her hus band Irfan and t

heir el der son Edis on.

II. Juris dicti on and Standard of Review W e ha ve ju risdi ction to re view the final o rde r of rem ova l pu rsua nt to 8 U .S.C . § 125 2. T he final o rde r ge ner ally is th e or der of th e B IA
. Ga o v. A shcro ft , 299 F.2d 266, 271 (3 d Ci r. 200 2) . Wh er e the BIA ei th er de fe rs to orad opt s t

he opini on o f the IJ , w e
rev iew the I J’s d ecis ion as if it w ere th e de cisio n of

the B IA
. Id. Wh ere, as here, the B IA3 The streamlini ng regulations per mit the BIA to affir

m without opi nion the decisi on of the IJ . 8 C.F. R. § 3.1(a)(7) ( 2003). An affi rmance without opinion approves the IJ ’s deci sion and si gnifie s that any er rors in the deci sion were har mless or non ma teria l. 8 C .F.R . § 3.1 (a)(7 )(iii) (2 003 ). 6 (under t he Attorney

General’s stre amlini ng regulations 3 ) affir ms without opi nion the find ing s of

the I J, w e rev iew the I J’s o pin ion and scru tiniz e its re aso nin g. Dia v. Ash croft , 353 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 2003 ) ( en banc ). W e rev iew the I J’s f

ind ing s of

fac t un der the s ubs tanti al ev iden ce s tand ard
. Abd ille v. Ash croft , 242 F .3d 47 7, 483 (3d C ir. 2001 ). The IJ’s find ings m ust be uph eld unl ess th e ev iden ce c om pels a co ntra ry con clus ion
. Id
. III. Discussi on The Act authori zes the Attorney General i n his di scret ion to gr ant asylum to a deportabl e ali en who is deemed to be a “ refugee” wit hin the meaning of secti on 1101(a)( 42)(A) of the Act. 8 U.S. C. § 1158(b)( 1) (2003). That sect ion defi nes “refugee ”
as: any person w ho is outside an y country of such pe rson’s

nation ality or, in the c ase o f a pe rson h aving no n ationa lity, is outsid e any co untry in w hich s uch p erson last hab itually resi ded, and who is unabl e or unwill ing to r eturn t o, and who is unabl e or unwill ing to ava il hi mself or her self of t he protec tion of , that cou ntry beca use o f pers ecutio n or a we llfounded fear of per secuti on on account of r ace, r eligi on, nationa lit

y, membership i n a parti cular s ocialgroup or pol itical o pin ion
....7

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An asylum applicant who establishes past persecuti on has a pre sum ptio n of

a w ell-f oun ded fea r of

futu re p erse cutio n. 8 C .F.R . § 20 8.13 (b)(1 )(i). But that presumpti on can be rebutted if the INS est ablis hes bya preponderance of the evidence t

hat the re has been afundamental c hange in ci rcumstance s so that the appl icant no l ong er h as a we ll-fo und ed fear o r can saf ely retu rn to a differe nt p art o f the cou ntry. Mulan ga v. A shcro

ft , 349 F.3d 123, 132 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 C.F. R. § 208.13(b) (1)(i )(A) and (B). Well-founded fear for as ylum purposes involves both a s ubject ively genuine fear of p erse cutio n an d an obj ectiv ely rea son able pos sibility o f pe rsec utio n. Zubeda v. Ash croft , 333 F.3d 463, 469 (3d Cir. 2003). The subj ecti ve prong requi res a showing t hat the fe ar is ge nuin e w hile the objec tive pro ng re quires ascerta ining w hethe r a reas onab le perso n in the alien’s c ircum stance s wo uld fe ar pers ecutio n if retu rned to the c oun try in que stion
. Id. The IJ rev iewed both the sub jective and the o bjective com ponen ts of Lida T rimi’s claim that sup porter s of th e A lbania n soc ialist party threa tened to kidn ap K lodian shou ld they not vote f

or the s ocial ist

party in the J une 1997 election. I n finding no obj ecti ve support f or Trimi’ s clai m of future per secuti on, the IJ rel ied on a U.S. Department of State c oun try report ind icating that A lbania n asylum applic ants fr eque ntly seek to incorr ectly portra y the Alb anian socialist g over nm ent as c om mu nist and as activ ely targetin g sup porter s of its o ppo sition. T he IJ foun d that c rime w as the m ore like ly8

exp lana tion for any h arm or th e thr eat o f ha rm to the T rimi s tha n w as p olitic al op pos ition
. The country report revealed t hat both organized and amateur crime are flourishing amidst poverty and weakened forces at tempti ng to maint ain publi c order. There was no object ive evi dence to suppor t a fi nding that

the thr eatened ki dnapping of Klodi an was
mo tivat ed b y a de sire to per sec ute L ida T rimi bec aus e of her pol itical v iew s. Th e IJ a lso d oub ted th e ve racit y of th e su bjec tive c om pon ent o f the Trim is’ cla im. Alth oug h Lid a Trim i’s asylum applic ation re coun ted the hom e visit pa id by soc ialist party members prior

to the J une 1997 election, s he fail ed to menti on the fact most rel evant for asy lum -- t

hat the y t hreate ned to kidna

p her son. The first

mention of t

he threatened kidnapping was in Lida Trimi’ s affidavit in s upport of her asy lum clai m where she related her rece ipt of a

letter on ele ction day st ating t hat her younger son would be ki dnapped shou ld she fail to v ote so cialist. H er inab ility to recite the a lleged kidn appin g con sistently caused the IJ to c onclude that she had attempt ed to couch a criminalmatter in poli tica l te rms inor der

to qua li fy

for as y lum. Despite finding that Lida Trimi suffered past persecuti on under the comm unist regim e, the IJ w as no t persu aded that T rimi fa ced f uture p ersecu tion up on re turning to Albania. There was no evidence t hat she had e ver been per secuted at the hands of the post-c ommunist government s. Consequent ly , nei ther Li da nor Klodian Tr imi qual ifie d for “refuge e” stat

us and thei r asy lum clai ms were denied. Their withholding of r emoval9

clai m and request f

or Convention r elie f necessarily fail given the higher bur dens of proof app licab le to t hos e cla ims
. Zub eda v . Ashc roft , 333 F.3d 463, 469 -70 (3d C ir. 2003). The IJ’s r eliance on the count ryreport s for i nformati on on the politica l climate was app rop riate
. Xie v . Ashc roft , 369 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2004) (ci ting Zubeda , 333 F.3d at 477-78) (c ountry

report s are t

he most appropriate and perhaps t he best r esource for informat ion on poli tica l si tuati ons in for eign nat ions) ( inter nal quotations and cit ations
om itted); Ka yem be v. A shcro ft , 334 F.3d 231, 235 (3d Cir. 2001) (count ryreport can consti tute s ubstant ial e vidence t o support f inding t hat the INS rebutt ed presumpti on of future perse cution) (internal quo tations and citations om itted). Even if the Tr imis were cor rect in their

assertion that

the countryreport s standing alone were i nsuffici ent to r ebut the presumpti on of future pe rsecut ion, t he IJ’s decisi on also t ook into ac count the credibi lit y of Tri mi’s t esti mony that she feared pe rsecut ion at the hands of t

he now ruling s ocial ist

party . The IJ determined that the lack of cons ist ency in Lida T rimi’s recitation in her app lication, affidavit and testim ony of her en counters with the s ocial ist

party caused doubt a s to whether her fear of

future pe rsecut ion was genuine. Rather, the IJfound on the re cord pres ented that Lida Trimi att empted to couch a crim inal m atter in p olitic al ter ms in o rde r to q ualif y for a sylum
. Based on the for egoing, we find that substantial e vidence suppor ts the IJ’s finding that Tr imi di d not est ablis h a well-f ounded fear of fut

ure pers ecuti on or a li kelihood of10

future tortur e in Albani a based upon politica l opini on. The consol idate d Petitions for Review are denie d.

________________________