The Ho n o rab l e G re go ry Va nT at en h o v e, Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge f o r t h e E as t ernDi s tri ct * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. 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: 10a0471n.06 No. 09-3476 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
D R I T E C E K

A J, Petitioner,
v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDE R O F T H E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be fore : GI BB ONS and COOK, Circ uit J udg es, and V AN TATENHOVE , District J udg e. * COOK, Circuit J udg e. Drite Cekaj, a native and citiz en of Albania, petitions for r eview of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) decision af firming the I mmigration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) de nial of he r c l a i m s f o r a s yl u m , w i t h h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l , an d

p r o t e c t i o nun d e r

th e C o n v e n t i o nA g a i n st Torture (“CAT” ). We deny the petition.
I. Cekaj re ported suff

eringphy sical abuse at the hands of the fo rm er go v ernment due to her family ’s involvement with the Albani an De mocratic Party . The Immigration J udg e re jected he rNo. 09-3476

Cekaj v. H

older

- 2 - asylum claim as untimely . Noting that Cekaj’s testimony included interna l inconsistencies and
c on fl ic te d w ithhe r a

pp lic a ti on and

su pp or tin g do c ume nts , th e I J found Ce ka j’ s c la im o f p a st perse cution no t cr edibl e and de nied her reque sts for withholding of remova l and CAT protec tion. Crediting the Gover

nment’s evidenc e of c hang ed countr y conditions—the Democr atic Party took po we r s ho rtly aft e r C e ka j le ft Al ba nia , e nd ingthe po lit ic a l pe rs e c uti on of its sy mpathi zer s in Al ba n i a
—t h e I J h e l d , i nt h e a l t e r

n a t i v e , t h a tc o n d i t i o n s i nA l b an i a c h an g e d s u c ht h a tC e k a

j c o u ld safe ly return w ithout a likelihood of persec ution or torture.
Th e B I A a ff

ir me d, Ce ka

j pe tit ion e d f

or re vie w, and

we a ff ir m.
II.
A. “B eca use the BIA adopted and added to the I J ’s dec ision, we revie w the opinion of the I J and the B I A’s supplementa l comments.” Haider v. H older , 5 9 5 F
. 3 d

2 7 6 , 2 8 1 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. We

“ may re ver se on ly

if the de c isi on

wa s ma nif e stl y c on tr ary to l aw, that is , if

the e vid e nc e no t on ly supports a contra

ry conclusion, but indeed c om pe ls it.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). B. We first take up Ceka

j’s challeng e to the I J ’s untimeliness f inding a nd dispense with it on jurisdictional gr ounds. This c o u rt lacks jurisdiction to review “asy lum applications denied for untimeliness . . . when the appe al see ks rev i ew o f d i scre tionary or fa ctual questions,” but ca n consider “ constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453No. 09-3476

Cekaj v. H

older

- 3 - F.3d 743, 748 ( 6th Cir. 2006). As Cekaj does not ra ise any const i t u t i o nal or statutory issues, we dismiss her a sy lum claim. Sim ilarly , jurisdictional de fec ts pr eclude our revie w of Ceka j’s claim for humanitarian a sy lum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(A)
. Be cause Cekaj “fa iled to raise this issue be fo re the B I A b e low , w e are wi tho ut j ur isd ic tio n to c on sid er [ her] pet itionfo r r e vie w o n th is g round.” Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 641 ( 6th Cir. 2005). C. To qualify

for withholding of re moval or CAT protec tion, Ceka j must demonstrate a c lear probability of perse cution on the basis of a pr otected c ateg ory or that it is more likely

than not that she would be tortur ed if re moved. Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 749–50. Although pa st persec ution establishes a pr esumption of future pe rsec ution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1), the Gover nment can r ebut this by showing “a f

undamental c hang e in cir cu mstances suc h that the applica nt’s life or f

ree dom would not be threatened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(i)( A). The re cord r efle cts that the De mocratic Party came to power in Alba

nia af ter Ceka j fled the
c ou ntry , ma

kin g futur e pe rs e c uti on

or tor tur e fo r f or me r m e mbe rs hip in t

he no w- ru lin g Part

y unlikely . Moreove r, the re port on cha ng ed countr

y conditions ex plain s t h at n either the Albanian g ov e rnme nt n or

the ma jor po lit ic a l par

tie s p e rs e c ute po lit ic a l op po ne nts . T he B I A, c on sis te nt w ith this court’s prior holdi ng s, upheld the I J ’s cha ng ed-c onditions finding. See , e.g ., Ndrecaj v. Mukase y , 5 22 F.3 d 6 67 , 6 76 –7 7 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) (“ [C]ond iti on s in Al ba nia are ‘f un dame nta lly chang ed,’ a

nd we cannot fault the I J for r eac hing the same c onclusion.” (c itation omit ted)). E ven if we w ere to cre dit Cekaj’s claim of p ast perse cution, she off ere d no evidenc e to counter theNo. 09-3476

Cekaj v. H

older

- 4 - Gover nment’s s howing of chang ed conditions that obviate Ceka j’s past-per secution conc erns. The
rec ord does not compe l us to reac h a conc lusion contrary to that rea ched by

the I J or B I A. III
. L ackingjurisdiction to review the tim eliness finding , we dismiss the asylum claim and deny th e r e ma in in g w it

h h o ld in g o f r e mo v a l an d CA T c la im s o n th e me r it s b e c a u s e o f c h an g ed country
c on dit ion s.