FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 7, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10493

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A79-448-138

EMILIAN SHKAMBI,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(October 7, 2009)

Before HULL, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Emilian Shkambi, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s

(“IJ”) order denying him asylum and withholding of removal under the

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and relief under the United Nations

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Shkambi claims he suffered persecution in

Albania because of his political opinion. In denying relief, the IJ found Shkambi

not credible. After review, we deny the petition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Airport Interview

On May 30, 2002, Shkambi attempted to enter the United States at Miami

International Airport. During the airport interview with an immigration officer and

an Albanian interpreter, Shkambi stated that he had attempted to enter the United

States to find a job because there was no employment in Albania. Shkambia also

stated that the Albanian police “make their own rules” and could do anything to

him. However, Shkambia indicated that he had never been arrested.

On June 5, 2002, the Department of Homeland Security served Shkambi

with a notice to appear charging him with removability under INA

§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as an immigrant who, at the

time of application for admission, did not possess a valid immigrant visa, reentry

permit, border crossing card, or other valid entry document.

B. Credible-fear Interview

2
On June 5, 2002, an asylum officer conducted a credible-fear interview with

Shkambi using an Albanian interpreter. At the outset, the asylum officer informed

Shkambi that he should feel comfortable disclosing the reasons he feared returning

to Albania because these reasons would not be disclosed to the Albanian

government and were important in determining whether Shkambi was eligible for

asylum or withholding of removal.

During his credible-fear interview, Shkambi reported one incident of

persecution. Shkambi stated that he had been a supporter of the Democratic Party

(“DP”) and had attended DP meetings on two occasions. In June 2000, while

attending a DP party meeting, two police officers beat him with a baton and a

broken bottle. When asked whether the officers said anything while they beat him,

Shkambi responded, “[t]hey were just telling every body to leave the meeting.” As

a result of the attack, Shkambi’s arm was injured and he was hospitalized for two

months. Shkambi believed the officers targeted him because he had attended a DP

gathering, and he explained that the police supported the Socialist Party (“SP”).

When asked whether he had any further problems after this June 2000

incident, Shkambi responded that his uncle was sent to prison twice because he

was a Catholic priest. Shkambi did not relate any other incidents involving

himself. Shkambi stated that he left Albania due to his problems with authorities

and that he feared they would imprison or kill him if he returned to Albania

3
because of his support for the DP.

C. Asylum Application

In March 2003, Shkambi filed an application for asylum, withholding of

removal and CAT relief. In his application, Shkambi asserted that he was

persecuted based on his political opinion, religion, and membership in a particular

social group. In particular, Shkambi asserted that he, his father and his uncles

1

were arrested, imprisoned, interrogated, beaten and tortured by the police and

government authorities. Shkambi explained that the authorities were affiliated

with the SP and that he, his father and uncles suffered this persecution due to their

political activity with the DP.

In an attached personal statement, Shkambi explained that his father and

uncles were leaders in the DP. Shkambi became involved with the DP’s Youth

Forum in 1998 and assisted his father in organizing DP meetings and

demonstrations. The personal statement outlined three incidents of alleged

persecution of Shkambi. First, in September 1998, after a DP leader, Arben Brozi,

2

On appeal, Shkambi asserts only that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion. 1

Thus, we do not discuss further Shkambi’s claims of persecution based on religion or membership

in a social group. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005)

(stating that claims not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned).

The personal statement recounted several incidents prior to 1998 in which Shkambi’s father

2

and uncles were beaten or arrested by police while participating in political demonstrations. The

personal statement also stated that in 1999 one of Shkambi’s uncles, who was a DP party leader, was

arrested and held for one month, during which time he was interrogated, beaten and tortured.

4
was murdered, Shkambi’s father recruited people to join a protest at Brozi’s

funeral procession. At the protest, the police beat Shkambi and his father, and

arrested his father.

Second, on August 11, 1999, three policemen attacked Shkambi. During the

attack, one of the policemen cut his arm with a broken glass bottle and told him

that his father must not have “learned a lesson,” because he had permitted his son

(Shkambi) to participate in politics. During the attack, the policemen demanded

that Shkambi give information about his father and uncles and threatened to leave

him to die so his father would stop his political activity. As a result of this

incident, Shkambi was hospitalized for five days.

Finally, in September 2000, Shkambi and his father were returning home

from a DP meeting when they were confronted by five policemen. The police

arrested them, detained them for two weeks and brutally beat them. The police

deprived Shkambi of food and water for two days, interrogated him, kicked him in

his genitals, issued electric shocks to his body, and threatened to kill him. It took

Shkambi several weeks to recover from this mistreatment.

In September 2000, the police released Shkambi and his father with orders to

return with information about the DP. Instead, Shkambi traveled to a village in

northern Albania, where he stayed until he made arrangements to leave the country

in May 2002. Shkambi later learned that, when he and his father failed to report

5
back to police as ordered, the police issued a warrant for Shkambi’s arrest and rearrested his father. The police imprisoned Shkambi’s father for approximately one

month, and his father moved around between different cousins’ houses in northern

Albania after his release. After Shkambi’s arrival in the United States, his uncle

informed him that the police had been searching for him and his father.

C. Documentary Evidence

In support of his application, Shkambi filed a copy of a medical record

indicating that Shkambi was hospitalized for “[m]any open injuries and bleeding to

his arm” between August 11, 1999 and August 16, 1999.

Shkambi also included reports and articles on Albania. According to the

2001 U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Albania

(“2001 Country Report”), the Albanian police committed human rights abuses,

including torture and other mistreatment of detainees. The DP had alleged that the

police killed a DP member while he was in custody and reported that the police

harassed and beat some of its members. The 2001 Country Report further stated

that, while Albanian law provided for the right to peaceful assembly, some

individuals claimed that the police intimidated them due to their participation in

opposition rallies.

A 2001 article by Human Rights Watch stated that Albania’s SP and DP

engaged in “bitter political feuding.” The article reported that a senior DP member

6
was assassinated in 1998. A 2001 report by Amnesty International stated that, in

November 2000, the Albanian police arrested and mistreated DP demonstrators

who lacked official authorization for their demonstration.

The record also included the 2003 U.S. State Department Country Report on

Human Rights Practices in Albania, which largely was consistent with the 2001

Country Report, except that it did not mention abuse or harassment of DP

members.

In addition, the record included a 2001 report by the State Department’s

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. According to this 2001 report,

Albania was under communist reign between 1945 and 1990, and a political

persecution claim was likely to lack merit after this time period. The 2001 report

stated that crime occurred at high levels, but that it was unlikely that individuals

would be targeted for mistreatment on political grounds. Instead, because the

Albanian economy was in poor condition, the majority of asylum claims by

Albanian applicants were based on economic, rather than political, considerations.

D. Removal Hearing

At the removal hearing, Shkambi testified that his father was a member of

the DP and attended DP rallies. Shkambi joined the DP’s Youth Forum in 1998,

attended rallies with his father and distributed DP literature. Due to his political

activities, Shkambi had trouble with the police on three dates – September 14,

7
1998, August 11, 1999, and September 9, 2000. September 14, 1998 was the day

of the funeral for an assassinated DP leader. On this day, the police beat Shkambi,

his father and his uncles and arrested his father. His father was brutally beaten

during his arrest, and, as a result, was hospitalized for five days.

On August 11, 1999, Shkambi was attacked by three policemen while on his

way home from a DP Youth Forum meeting. During this attack, one of the officers

cut Shkambi’s left arm with a broken bottle. Shkambi stated that he was

hospitalized for five days due to loss of blood from the cuts on his arm.

On September 9, 2000, five policemen arrested Shkambi and his father as

they walked home from a DP meeting. Once at the police station, the policemen

separated and interrogated Shkambi and his father and asked Shkambi about his

father’s and uncles’ political activities. They threatened to kill Shkambi’s father in

front of Shkambi if he did not agree to provide them with information about his

family’s political activities. The police beat Shkambi, left him in a cell for two

days without food or water, and then resumed interrogating him. The police also

beat Shkambi in front of his father. During this beating, one of the officers hit

Shkambi’s genitals with a metal object, causing him to pass out from the pain.

When Shkambi regained consciousness, the officers gave him an electric shock by

placing metal plates on his shoulders. Shkambi’s September 2000 confinement

lasted for two weeks. During this time, the police also beat his father and

8
threatened to kill Shkambi in front of his father.

According to Shkambi, after the police released him and his father in

September 2000, a friend who was also in the DP recommended they leave their

home to avoid being killed. Shkambi and his father traveled to a cousin’s home,

and Shkambi later fled Albania in May 2002. Upon arriving in the United States,

Shkambi learned that his father had again been arrested and beaten.

On cross-examination, Shkambi testified that he attended school until 1995.

After he left school, he did not work, but instead participated in political activities

because his father told him that this was the most valuable use of his time.

Shkambi’s father was employed as a truck driver and was the vice leader of the DP

in the area where his family lived. When asked why he did not tell the asylum

officer at his credible-fear interview about his two-week detention in 2000,

Shkambi responded that his fear of being returned to Albania caused him to forget

about the incident. When asked why Shkambi told the asylum officer that he was

hospitalized for two months after the attack on August 11, 1999, Shkambi stated

that he was hospitalized for five days and that he did not recall telling the asylum

officer that his hospitalization lasted two months. Shkambi explained that he did

not mention his past persecution during his airport interview because he was too

afraid to be able to share his entire story with the immigration officer. On redirect

examination, Shkambi clarified that, during his airport interview, he told the

9
immigration officer that he was afraid to return to Albania because the police made

their own rules.

E. IJ and BIA Rulings

The IJ denied all relief, finding that Shkambi was not credible because he

had not been consistent in describing the severity of his mistreatment in Albania.

The IJ pointed out that: (1) the extent of Shkambi’s reported political involvement

increased from nothing at his airport interview, to attending two DP meetings at his

credible-fear hearing, to being an active member of the DP Youth Group and the

son of a DP party leader in his asylum application and hearing testimony; and (2)

Shkambi did not disclose his (or his father’s) September 2000 arrest and torture,

the most severe mistreatment he claims to have suffered, until he filed his asylum

application. The IJ acknowledged that Shkambi’s explanation for not disclosing

these facts earlier was his fear of being returned to Albania. However, the IJ found

this explanation unconvincing, stating:

The Court fails to see why an individual will diminish the

weight of his claim by indicating that if he disclosed more, he would

then be returned to the home country when the opposite is what’s

logical. The higher the level of harm, the less the chances are that the

person may be returned on the spot. The less a person discloses as far

as the level of harm, the higher the chances are that an individual may

be returned to the home country because they do not meet that even of

[sic] prima facie case of being paroled to this country for [the]

purpose of a credible fear interview, much less a full asylum hearing

before the Immigration Court. That type of rational[e] is not logical.

It does not make sense. That is the explanation that the Respondent

10
has given the Court. That he may have been nervous, the Court

understands and accepts. But that he did not even remember as he

told the Court here today, that is not consistent with how a reasonable

person, when disclosing, once they have been given the opportunity to

do so, all the reasons as to why they’re seeking political asylum and

all the level of harm that may have occurred to them. The Court fails

to see why the Respondent would have disclosed what appears to be a

minor incident with the police in which apparently he’s beaten and his

arm is injured by a broken bottle, and does not tell the asylum officer

that he in fact was beaten severely to the point that he’s injured or at

least had a blow to his genitals, much less that he is being electrocuted

by metal plates that are being placed on his shoulders. It does not

make sense.

After noting that Shkambi’s asylum application recounted a September 9,

2000 arrest in which he claims to have been brutally tortured, beaten and

interrogated, the IJ stated: “The Court can allow for some leeway as far as the level

of detail in an asylum hearing or even in a formal, written application for political

asylum. But when a story or a claim increases to the level that this particular claim

has increased, then the Court then does have issues with an individual’s

credibility.”

The IJ credited Shkambi’s claim that “some sort of confrontation with the

police” occurred on August 11, 1999. However, the IJ found that, even assuming

this single confrontation was politically motivated, it did not rise to the level of

persecution. The IJ also discredited Shkambi’s testimony as to the extent of his

and his father’s political activities. Noting that in Albania Shkambi was

unemployed and poor, the IJ found it “very difficult to believe that the Respondent

11
would then otherwise engage his available time in politics as opposed to worrying

about what normal human beings worry about day [in] and day out, that is, about

eating and putting a roof over one’s head, first and foremost.” The IJ also noted

that, although conditions in Albania suggested a “political tug-of-war” between the

DP and the SP, given Shkambi’s “minimal level of [political] activities,” Shkambi

had not shown he would be targeted in Albania. Finally, the IJ found that Shkambi

had successfully relocated in Albania, where he remained unharmed for a yearand-a-half (from September 2000 to May 2002). Thus, the IJ concluded that

Shkambi had failed to show he had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded

fear of future persecution.

On appeal to the BIA, Shkambi challenged, inter alia, the IJ’s adverse

credibility finding, arguing that the IJ relied on minor flaws and irregularities to

discredit him and failed to take into account that the fear Shkambi felt while being

interviewed by immigration officials caused him not to fully disclose all the details

of his persecution. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision to deny

Shkambi’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal to the extent it was

based on the adverse credibility finding. The BIA reviewed the IJ’s reasons for

3

Shkambi did not challenge the denial of his request for CAT relief before the BIA and does 3

not challenge it on appeal to this Court. Thus, we do not address Shkambi’s claim for CAT relief. 

See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating that we

lack jurisdiction to consider claims that were not exhausted before the BIA); Sepulveda, 401 F.3d

at 1228 n.2 (stating that claims not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned).

12
the adverse credibility finding, noting that in his airport interview Shkambi omitted

any mention of his past persecution at the hands of the Albanian police and that in

his credible-fear interview he mentioned only the beating where he sustained an

injury to his arm. In contrast, the BIA pointed out that Shkambi mentioned for the

first time in his hearing testimony that he had trouble with the police in 1998 and

September 2000 and failed to provide a plausible explanation for omitting these

incidents in his previous interviews. In addition, the BIA determined that Shkambi

failed to explain why he told the asylum officer in his credible-fear interview that

his arm was injured in June 2000 and required two months’ hospitalization, but

testified at the removal hearing that the injury occurred in August 1999 and

required only five days’ hospitalization. Thus, the BIA concluded that the IJ’s

adverse credibility determination was not clearly erroneous. Shkambi filed this

petition for review.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Meaningful Appellate Review

Shkambi argues that the BIA did not provide a reasoned basis for its

decision because it failed to adequately address the IJ’s adverse credibility finding,

thus making meaningful judicial review impossible.

“Where . . . the [Immigration Judge] has given reasoned consideration to the

petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address

13
specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner

presented.” Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006)

(quotation marks omitted, alterations in original). Thus, it is sufficient if the IJ

“consider[ed] the issues raised and announce[d] its decision in terms sufficient to

enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely

reacted.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). With regard to credibility findings, the IJ

must give “specific, cogent reasons” for discrediting an asylum applicant. Forgue

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 410 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005).

Where the BIA issues its own opinion, but expressly adopts the IJ’s

reasoning, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft,

257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, because the BIA expressly adopted

the IJ’s decision “to the extent it was based upon an adverse credibility finding,”

we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s reasoning concerning the adverse credibility

finding and its effect on Shkambi’s claims.

In Shkambi’s case, the BIA and the IJ gave specific, cogent reasons for

finding Shkambi not credible and for concluding that he was ineligible for asylum

and withholding of removal. In support of the adverse credibility finding, both the

BIA and the IJ pointed to material omissions and inconsistencies among Shkambi’s

hearing testimony and his two previous statements to immigration officers.

Furthermore, the IJ offered reasonable explanations for why she found Shkambi’s

14
explanation for the omissions and inconsistencies implausible. Contrary to

4

Shkambi’s claims, there was nothing conclusory or summary about the BIA’s

consideration of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Instead, the BIA carefully

reviewed the omissions and inconsistencies highlighted by the IJ. This reasoned

discussion of Shkambi’s credibility is sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate

review of that finding.

5

B. Adverse Credibility Finding

Shkambi argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, adopted and

affirmed by the BIA, is not supported by substantial evidence.

6

An asylum applicant has the burden to show, with specific and credible

evidence, either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on a

protected ground. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87. If the IJ finds an asylum applicant

not credible, the IJ must make an explicit adverse credibility finding and offer

Shkambi argues for the first time in this Court that the IJ engaged in speculation in 4

discrediting him. Because this claim was not exhausted before the BIA, we do not address it. See

Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1250.

Shkambi argues that the IJ failed to “address the remainder of [his] eligibility for relief.” 5

However, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision as to statutory eligibility, and we do not review

that portion of the IJ’s decision. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. Shkambi does not make a similar

argument as to the BIA’s ruling. Instead, on appeal, Shkambi argues that his hearing testimony was

wrongly discredited and that, when properly credited, establishes his eligibility for asylum and

withholding of removal. Thus, we address only the IJ’s and the BIA’s adverse credibility finding.

Credibility determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence test, and we will not 6

overturn them unless the record compels it. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87.

15
“specific, cogent reasons” for the finding. Id. “Indications of reliable testimony

include consistency on direct examination, consistency with the written

application, and the absence of embellishments.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440

F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006). “Once an adverse credibility finding is made,

7

the burden is on the applicant alien to show that the IJ’s credibility decision was

not supported by ‘specific, cogent reasons’ or was not based on substantial

evidence.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. “[T]his court may not substitute its

judgment for that of the [IJ] with respect to credibility findings.” Id. at 1286

(quotation marks omitted).

Here, the IJ and the BIA gave specific, cogent reasons for finding Shkambi

not credible, and those reasons are supported by the record. Specifically, the IJ and

the BIA both pointed out the material omissions and inconsistencies among

Shkambi’s airport interview, credible-fear interview, asylum application and

hearing testimony. With regard to omissions: (1) in his airport interview, Shkambi

failed to mention any incidents at all of persecution by the Albanian police, instead

stating that he traveled to the United States to find employment; (2) in his airport

The REAL ID Act of 2005 provides that an adverse credibility determination may be based 7

on inconsistencies that do not go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See Pub. L. No. 109-13,

§ 101(a)(3), (d)(4)(C), 119 Stat. 231, 303, 305 (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii),

1229a(c)(4)(C). Because Shkambi’s application was filed before these amendments became

effective on May 11, 2005, they do not apply to his claims. Nonetheless, we need not resolve

whether adverse credibility determinations in pre-REAL ID Act cases must be based on

inconsistencies that go to the heart of the claim because the inconsistencies identified by the IJ and

the BIA in this case relate directly to Shkambi’s claims of persecution.

16
interview, he did not mention any political involvement; (3) in his credible-fear

interview five days later, Shkambi mentioned only the beating he suffered in

August 1999, omitting any mention of his 1998 arrest or the prolonged, two-week

torture he later claimed to have suffered in 2000; and (4) in his credible-fear

interview, he did not mention his membership in the DP’s Youth Forum or his

father’s and uncles’s leadership in the DP. In other words, Shkambi failed to

mention any persecution in 1998 or 2000 or his family’s leadership role in the DP

until he filed his asylum application and testified at his hearing.

As for inconsistencies: (1) Shkambi stated during his credible-fear interview

that his arm was injured in July 2000 and required a two-month hospitalization, but

testified at the hearing that the injury occurred in August 1999 and required only a

five-day hospitalization; and (2) Shkambi stated in his airport interview that he had

never been arrested, but testified at the hearing that he was arrested in 2000 and

tortured for two weeks.

Shkambi argues that he should not have been discredited based on omissions

and inconsistencies in his airport and credible-fear interviews because he explained

that they were a result of his fear of being returned to Albania. We recently

addressed an IJ’s use of a petitioner’s airport interview in assessing credibility in

Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., ___ F.3d ___, No. 08-12212, 2009 WL 2432054 (11th

Cir. 2009). In Tang, the asylum applicant, Tang, stated in her airport interview that

17
she had traveled to the United States because she was Christian and there was no

religious freedom in China. Id. at *2. When asked which church she attended,

Tang responded that she did not go to a church, but to people’s houses, and that it

was “family style.” Id. In her credible-fear interview, Tang said she was a

member of an underground church and described multiple beatings and arrests. Id.

Thus, while Tang did not mention any beatings or arrests in her airport interview,

she did mention them in her credible-fear interview. At her removal hearing, Tang

testified that she was a member of an underground family church and that the

police raided her church, arrested her and accused her of belonging to a cult. Id. at

*1. The police detained her for more than ten days and regularly beat and

interrogated her. Id. After her parents paid bribes to obtain her release, she was

re-arrested and beaten five times. Id.

The IJ discredited Tang, relying upon purported inconsistencies between

Tang’s airport interview and her later credible-fear interview and hearing

testimony. Id. at *2. On appeal, this Court concluded that one inconsistency was

easily explained by Tang during the hearing and another was not in fact an

inconsistency, but an elaboration on a statement made during her airport interview.

Id. at *5-6. We expressed some concern about, but did not reject outright, a third

inconsistency, Tang’s omission of multiple brutal police beatings during her airport

interview. Id. at *8.

18
In reversing the credibility finding and remanding for a reevaluation of

credibility, we drew a distinction between hearing testimony that merely

8

elaborates upon the earlier airport interview and hearing testimony that “actually

contradicts” and “cannot be squared with” the airport interview. Id. at * 7, 8. We

recognized that, in an airport interview, unlike an asylum hearing, “the alien is not

represented by counsel and may be markedly intimidated by official questioning,

particularly if the alien has indeed been subject to government abuse in her country

of origin.” Id. at *6. In so doing, we relied upon opinions from several sister

circuits that have concluded that an airport interview may be used to evaluate

credibility as long it is reliable. See, e.g., Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d

169, 179 (2d Cir. 2004); Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 504-05 (7th Cir.

2004); Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F.3d 157, 163-64 (3d Cir. 1998).

9

In Tang, we rejected two of the IJ’s stated reasons for discrediting Tang–speculation about 8

the position and influence of Tang’s mother and perceived inconsistencies about Tang’s childhood

religious experience. We expressed concern about two others–Tang’s rehearsed demeanor during

the hearing and her omission of the beatings and arrests during her airport interview. Although we

did not reject these latter two reasons outright, we found them to be “strong factors pointing to a

remand.” Id. at *7-8. In addition, we concluded that the BIA had mistakenly found that medical

records that documented Tang’s treatment for two beatings were not timely filed and, thus, had not

considered them. Id. at *8. In light of all these considerations, we concluded that it was appropriate

to vacate the BIA’s decision and remand for the BIA and the IJ “to reevaluate its decision in this

case and its credibility determination in light of this opinion and in light of the medical records.” 

Id.

Here, Shkambi raises no argument as to the reliability or accuracy of the airport interview, 9

except to argue that he was too afraid of being returned to Albania to be fully forthcoming during

the interview. Notably, Shkambi’s airport interview was conducted in Albanian with the use of an

interpreter. Shkambi stated during the airport interview that he had understood all the questions he

was asked and had answered them truthfully and voluntarily.

19
Consequently, in Tang we concluded that, although an IJ may consider

contradictions between an asylum applicant’s airport interview and his later

testimony, “if an alien’s statements during an airport interview are less detailed

than the alien’s later testimony, the IJ should not focus exclusively on airport

interview omissions, rather than contradictions, when determining whether the

alien is credible.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, Tang recognizes that airport

interviews are useful and probative in evaluating an asylum applicant’s credibility,

but that they must be used with care as to the nature of the variances with

subsequent statements.

In Shkambi’s case, unlike in Tang, the IJ did not rely exclusively on

omissions from Shkambi’s airport interview to discredit him. Unlike in Tang,

Shkambi’s airport interview statement was not merely a less detailed version of the

facts he gave in later statements. Rather, Shkambi omitted entire incidents and

other significant facts both during his airport interview and again at his crediblefear interview. And, during his hearing testimony, Shkambi directly contradicted

his airport interview statement that he had never been arrested.

Although Shkambi offered his fear as an explanation for these omissions and

inconsistencies, that explanation does not compel a conclusion that Shkambi was

credible. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006)

(concluding that, although asylum applicant offered tenable explanation for

20
inconsistencies, the explanation did not compel reversal of the IJ’s adverse

credibility determination). This is especially true here because the asylum officer

at his credible-fear interview assured Shkambi (in his native language through an

interpreter) that he should feel comfortable telling him the reasons he feared

returning because they would not be disclosed to the Albanian government and

they were important to his asylum application. After receiving these assurances,

Shkambi recounted only one incident, a June 2000 encounter with two policemen

during which his arm was injured. When Shkambi was pointedly asked about

additional problems after this encounter, Shkambi stated only that his uncle had

been imprisoned for being a Catholic priest. Shkambi did not mention the most

severe allegations of mistreatment found in his asylum application and hearing

testimony. Cf. Tang, 2009 WL 2432054, at *8 (expressing concern about relying

on Tang’s omission of police beatings in her airport interview because Tang was

not asked about past harm, only about her fear of future harm). Shkambi also did

not mention his father’s or uncles’ leadership in the DP and the abuse he later

claimed they suffered at the hands of the police. As the IJ and BIA noted, the

extent of Shkambi’s political involvement and the severity of the abuse he suffered

as a result increased dramatically with each retelling of his story. This is not the

kind of “helpful elaboration” found in Tang. Cf. id. at *7 (describing Tang’s later

statement that she did not consider her grandmother’s Catholic religion to be a

21
Christian religion to be an “helpful elaboration” because it explained why Tang’s

statement in her airport interview that she had not practiced Christianity before

becoming a member of the underground family church was not inconsistent with

her hearing testimony that as a child she attended the Catholic church with her

grandmother).

For all these reasons, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse

credibility finding. Furthermore, Shkambi does not argue that the documentary

evidence in the record compels a conclusion that he was persecuted or has a wellfounded fear of persecution. Because Shkambi failed to establish eligibility for

asylum, he likewise failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See

Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93.

PETITION DENIED.

22