T he Hon. Al genon L. M ar bl ey , U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judge f or t he Sout her n D i st r i ct ofO hi o, si t t i ng * b y d e s i g n a ti o n . NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 06a0714n .06 Fi led : Oct ob er 4 , 200 6 03-4546/05 -4 330 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
MA RJ ETA SIL O and JO VAN SIL O, Pet itione rs,
v. J OH N A SH C R OF T, Res pondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P E TI TI O N F O RR E V I E W O F AN ORDER OF THE BOAR D OF IM MI GRATION APP EALS

Before: NORRIS and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Jud ge s , and MARBLEY, Distri ct * Judg e.
PERC UR IAM

. The pet it ion ers, M ar jet a and Jov an Sil o, seekrev iew of the order of the Boa rd of Immig ra ti on Appeal s that aff ir med a ru li ng by an immi g ra ti on j udg e deny ing asy lum and w it hhol din g of remov al, but g ra nti ng their req uestfor

vo lun tar y depar ture. The S i l o s c l a i m t o h a v e s u ffe re d p a s tp o l i t i c a l p e rs e c u t i o n i n Al b a n i a ba s e d on po l i t i c a l b e l i e fs and et hni c i denti ty

. Spec ific all y , M ar jet a Si lo cl aims thatsh e w as persec uted on th e g ro u n d o f h e r

o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e A l b a n i a n g o v e r n me n t ’ s l a w s a n d s o c i a l n o r ms targ eti ng
w omen. She tes ti fied in the immi g ra ti on cour t that she had l osther

j ob as a t eache r due to s peaki ng out to studen ts and fell ow teachers in fav or

of eq ual r ig hts for women. Jov an03-4546

Silo v. A sh c ro

ft

- 2 - Si lo is par

t Se rb and ass erts that, due to hi s ethni c ide nti ty and t he fact that he s poke out in one D emocrati c P arty meeti ng , he has suffered persec uti on.
Beca use th e pe titione rs had little or no verified docu me nta tion to supp ort the ir cl aims , t h e i mm i g ra t i o n j u d g e n o t e d t h a tc re d i b i l i ty w a s o f “ e xt re me i mp o rt a n c e ” t o t he outc ome of thei r appl ic ati on for rel ief. But the immig ra ti on judg e also ex press ed s ig nific ant
re se rvat io n s a b o u t t h e pe ti ti o n e rs’ cre d ib ili ty, es p e cia lly th a t o f Jo van S i l o . T h e ju d ge ult ima t e l y h e l d , a s a ma t t e r o f l a w , t h a t M a r j e t a S i l o ’ s c l a i m “ d [ i d ] n o t r i s e t o t he l ev el of persec uti on as i t is cog niz abl e on any of the enumerated g ro unds” of the I mmig ra ti on and Nation ality Act an d tha t Jovan Silo had failed to estab lish past pe rsecutio n ba sed o n his pol it ic al bel iefs.
The peti t i o n e rs a p p e a l e d t h e i mm i g ra t i o n j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n t o t h e B o a rd of Immig ra ti on Appeal s, w hic h aff ir med w it hout an opi nio n, an d s ubseq uentl y fil ed a peti ti on fo r re view

in this court. Follow ing oral arg um entin July 200 5, w e he ld the case in abey ance, rely ing on t he pet it ion ers’ st ated int enti on to fil e a mot ion to re open wit h the Boa rd. Appa rently, the en suing m otion t o reop en w as unt ime ly , butthe Bo ard ne v erthe less
cons ide re d the mer it s a nd deni ed the moti on, on the g ro und that the peti ti oners had fail ed to s how thatch ang ed c ondi ti ons in Al bani a w ere mater ial to thei r cas e.
Hav ing had the b enefit of oral arg ument, and hav ing st udi ed th e record on appeal and the briefs of

t he partie s, w e conclu de tha t the re is substan tial evi den ce in the record to s up p o rt t h e i mm i g ra t i o n j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n . E v e n i f t h e j u d g e h a d c re d i t e d a l l of the03-4546

Silo v. A sh c ro

ft

- 3 - tes ti mony , t he ev ide nce w oul d not hav e establ is hed the ex is tenc e of pas t persec uti on or a bas is for a w ell -founded fear of future persec uti on to the extent req uired for purpos es of g ra nti ng as y lum. M oreov er , t here i s n o meritt o t h e pet it ion ers’ cl aim that the B oard of Immig ra ti on App eal s i nit ial ly denied them the rig ht to rev iew byaff ir ming the deci si on of the immi g ra ti on j udg e w it hout an opi nio n. See Dekko v. INS , 351 F.3 d 717 1 (6th Cir. 2003). Finally , we a gr e e with the Bo ard’s det ermin ation thatthere a re no ground s to perm it
re openi ng . For t he reason s s et ou t abo v e, we deny the peti ti ons for rev iew and AFF IR M the decision of

the Bo ard of

Imm igration Appe als.