NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 07a0109n. 06 Fi l ed: February8, 2007 N o. 06- 3075 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
S H K E L Q IM K A M B E G O X H A J, P eti ti o n er,
v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. O n A ppeal fr om the I m m i gr at i on B oar d of A p p e a ls

/ B ef ore: G U Y , SU H R H E I N R I C H , and G R I F F I N , C i rcui t Judges
. P E R C U R I A M. Pet i t i oneri s an i l l egal i m m i gr antfr om A l bani a. T he form er I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( IN S )— now par tof the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y
— i ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tp et i t i oner . Pet i t i onerr es ponded by req u esti n g asy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu re ( C A T ) , and vol unt arydepartur e. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed pet i t i oner ’ s r eques t s , and on D ece m ber23, 2005, t he B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on. Pet i t i o n e ra p p e a l s a n d a r g u e s t h a th e s h o u l d b e p e r mi t t e d t o r e ma i n i n th e Uni t e d St at es beca us e he ha s a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on i f he i s r emoved t o A l bani a. Forthe f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.No. 06-3075 2 I. A . F a cts P e tit io n e r o f

f e re d th e f

o llo w in g te s tim o n ya t h is re m o v a l h e a rin g in C in c in n a ti. P e tit io n e r w a s b o rn in A lb a n ia in 1 9 6 8 . H is f a th e r a n d sis ter w e re a rre ste d w h e n h e w a s s ix y ear s ol d. H i s cous i n w as l at erarr es t ed forpol i t i cal r eas ons and, i n 1985, anothercous i n w as
s hot and ki l l ed at t he A l bani an bor der
. A t t he age of 15, pet i t i onerappl i ed t o at t end a s occe r
s chool , w hi ch had be en hi s l i fel ong dr eam, buthi s appl i cat i on w as deni ed. W hen he tur ned ei gh t een, pet i t i on er w as pl aced in m i l i t aryservice for tw o y ears . O n D ece m ber26, 1990, pet i t i onerand s om e fr i ends had j us tcompl et ed a ga m e of
s occe ri n pet i t i oner ’ s hom et ow n w hen t hey deci ded t o go dow nt ow n t o r el ax. A s pet i t i oner
arr i ved i n the dow nt ow n ar ea, pol i ce be gan t o arr i ve i n r i otgear , and a l ar ge cr ow d of peopl e— appr oxi m at el y 1, 500— gather ed i n t he ar ea. T he peopl e had gather ed t o pr ot es tt he pol i ce a nd demand t hatt he governm entgi ve up pow er . T he pol i ce began beat i ng peopl e and
u sin g p las tic b u llets to b re a k u p th e c ro w d
. P e tit io n e r w a s stru c k in th e h e a d , ca u sin g h im to f a ll d o w n a n d re n d e rin g h im u n c o n sc io u s. W h e n h e a w o k e , h e w a s b e in g tra n sp o rte d to
a m ili tar yh o sp ital. A t th e h o sp ital, h e w a s h a n d c u f f e d a n d w a s h e ld in c u sto d yth e re w ith appr oxi m at el y200 ot herpeopl e fr o m the ri ot . A ft erthr ee da y s atthe hos pi t al , w her e he
r ece i ved no medi cal t r eatm ent , pet i t i onerw as r el eas ed w hen a gr oup of t ow ns pe o p l e a tt acke d t he h ospit al and freed t he p ri soners. U p o n h is re lea se , p e tit io n e r w a s a f ra id to re tu rn h o m e , so h e a n d a f rie n d d e c id e d to
w al k t o t he G r eek bor der
. Pet i t i oner and hi s fr i end w er e fi r ed upon byan A l bani an s ol di erNo. 06-3075 3

a s th e yc ro ss e d th e b o rd e r— p e tit io n e r e x p lain e d th a t it w a s ro u tin e f o r A lb a n ian so ld ier s to fi r e upon peopl e cr os s i ng t he bor der

— buthe and hi s fr i end made i ts afe l yt o G r eec e. F o rt h e n e x tt e n y e a r s , p e t i t i o n e rl i v e d i n Gr e e c e a th i s f a t h e r - i n - l a w’ s h o u s e . He
w o rk e d f a irlyre g u lar ly , b u t h a d n o leg a l s tatu s a n d w a s o c c a sio n a llyf o rc e d to p a yb rib e s in order t o prevent being sent back t o A l ban i a. In Januaryof 2 00 1, peti t i on er obt ai ned a fal se passport and fl ew t o M exico. H e soon cross ed the bo rderi nto T exas an d cam e t o C olum bu s, O hi o t o be w i t h hi s s i s t er . T he IN S eventual l y di s cover ed pet i t i oneri n O hi o and i ns t i tut ed p r o c e e d i n g s t o h a v e h i m r e m o v e d f r o m th e c o u n t r y. A thi s r emoval hear i ng, pet i t i oneraddi t i onal l yas s ert ed that h is fr i end w ho
acc om pani ed hi m fr om A l bani a i nt o G r eec e eve ntual l yr eturned t o A l bani a i n 1997 or1998 t o at t end hi s s i s t er ’ s w eddi ng. Pet i t i oner ’ s fr i end w as gunned dow n i n fr ont of hi s hous e by
m en w ear i ng m as ks
. Pet i t i onerw as t ol d byhi s fatherthat h is fr i end w as ki l l ed byan
o rg a n iza tio n c a lled B R IS K , a s e c re t p a ra m ili tar yo rg a n iza tio n o f th e A lb a n ian g o v e rn m e n t. M e m b e rs o f

B R IS K a lso c a m e to p e tit io n e r’s h o u se sh o rtlya f ter th e 1 9 9 0 rio t in o rd e r to col l ec t p h ot ogr aphs and otherper s onal eff ect s of pet i t i oner . Pet i t i oneras s ert s t hatt he situ a tio n in A lb a n ia is a lm o st th e sa m e a s it w a s b e f o re th e 1 9 9 0 rio t. B . I m m i grat i on Jud ge’ s D eci s i on A ft err ecount i n g pet i t i oner ’ s r emoval hear i ng t es t i m ony , t he i m m i gr at i on j udge appl i ed the fa ct s of pet i t i oner ’ s cas e t o t he l aw r egar di ng as y l um . T he j udge fi r s tcons i der ed
w hetherpet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e, and concl u ded thati tw as . T he j udge then
cons i der ed w hether , byhi s t es t i m ony , pet i t i onerhad ca r r i ed hi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hatNo. 06-3075 4

he had s uffe r ed fr om pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni ons ort hatpet i t i oner had a w el l
- founded f

earo f fu tur e per s ecut i on. D es pi t e ac cept i ng t he cr edi bi l i tyof pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony , t he i m m i gr at i on j udge nevert hel es s concl uded thatpet i t i onerhad not exper i ence d pas tper s ecut i on bas ed on hi s i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni ons . T he j udge expl ai ned t hatt he i nj ur i es pet i t i oneri ncurr ed fr om the 1990 r i otw er e a r es ul tof the gen era li zed vi ol ence of the r i oti n pet i t i oner ’ s hom et ow n and n o t as a r es ul tof pas tper s ecut i on di r ect ed t ow ar d pet i t i onerbeca us e of hi s pol i t i cal opi ni ons ori m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni ons . I ns t ead, t he j udge vi ew ed p eti t i oner ’ s i nj ur i es as t he r es ul tof bei ng “i n t he w r ong pl ace att he w r ong tim e .” T he j udge al s o cons i der ed w hetherthe s hoot i ng i nci dentatthe A l bani an- G r ee ce bor derw as evi d en ce of pas tper s ecut i on. T he j udge det erm i ned thatt hi s i nci dentdi d not
con s t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on beca us e the i nci dentm er el yr efl ect ed thati tw as danger ous for anyone to c ro ss th e A lb a n ian b o rd e r a t th is tim e . A c c o rd in g ly , the ju d g e d id n o t v iew th is
as e v iden ce o f p ast p erse cu ti o n d ir ec ted a t petit ion er. N ex t, the ju d g e c o n side red w h ethe r pe ti ti o n er h a d a w e ll- fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . T h e jud g e a cc ep ted p eti ti o n er’s asse rt ion that the s am e g o v ern m en tal lead ers t hatw ere in char ge of A l bani a w hen pet i t i onerl efti n 1990 ar e s t i l l i n char ge t oday
. T he jud g e d eterm ined that p eti ti o n er m ayh av e a su b jecti v e f ea r of return ing d u e to h is fri en d ’s death and hi s fea rof B R I SK , butt hatther e w as no obj ect i ve ev idence t hatthe A l bani an g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld se e k to h a rm p e tit io n e r. T h e ju d g e n o ted th a t p e tit io n e r w a s n o t ab le to
e x p lain w h y h is frie n d w a s k ill e d b yB R IS K o r w h e th e r h is f rie n d ’s d e a th w a s lin k e d to h isNo. 06-3075 5

ro le in th e 1 9 9 0 rio t. F u rth e rm o re , th e ju d g e n o ted th a t m e m b e rs o f B R IS K h a d n o t b e e n to p e tit io n e r’s h o u se in 1 4 y e a rs a n d th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t B R IS K w a s c o n tin u in g to t ar getp e t i t i o n e ro rhi s fami l yforper s ecut i on. A ccor di ngl y , the i m m i gr at i on j udge conc l uded t hatpet i t i onerhad no obj ect i ve bas i s forfea r i ng per s ecut i on. F o r th e se re a so n s, th e ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t p e tit io n e r ha d n o t es tab lish e d e lig ib ili ty foras y l um . B as ed on thi s fi ndi ng, t he j udge al s o concl uded thatpet i t i onercoul d notm eet th e h ig h e r b u rd e n o f

p ro o f to e sta b lish w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l an d th a t th is re q u e st s h o u ld al s o be deni ed. N ext , t he i m m i gr at i on j udge conc l uded thatpet i t i onerhad pr es ent ed no t es t i m onyatal l r egar di ng t he fe arof t or tur e and that pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m undert he C onvent i on A g ains t T o rtu re sim il arlym u st fail
. F inally , the im m igrati o n ju d g e d en ied p eti ti o n er’s
r eques tforvol unt arydepartur e. C . B o a r d o f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls P et i t i onert i m el yappea l ed the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deci s i on t o the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A )
. O n D ece m ber23, 2005, the B oar d aff i r m ed w it h o u topi ni on t he i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deci s i on. II. A . St andard of R evi ew T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat pet i t i oner w as notel i gi bl e for
as y l um m us tbe uphel d i f “s uppor t ed by r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he re cor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U
. S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. “I tcan be r ever s ed onl yi f the evi dence pr es ent ed byNo. 06-3075 6

[ p e tit io n e r] w a s s u c h th a t a r e a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r w o u ld h a v e to c o n c lu d e th a t th e re q u isite fea rof per s ecut i on exi s t ed. ” Id
. T h e S u p re m e C o u rtelab o rated that to rev erse the B IA fi ndi ng, t he cour t m us t fi nd t hat t he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a fi ndi ng of per s ecut i on, but compel s i t

— and t hat t he evi dence al s o compel s t hatpet i t i onerhad a w el l
- founded f earthat h e w o u ld b e p e rs e c u te d b e c a u s e o f h is p o litic a l o p in io n . Id
. n. 1. A r evi ew i ng courtm aynot
re v e rs e m e re ly b e c a u s e it w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d th e c a s e d if f e re n tly. S e e S in g h v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F
. 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 4 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). F inally , w h ere the B IA af firm s th e im m ig ra tion jud g e’s deci s i on w i t hout opi ni on, “w e r evi ew t he [i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s ] deci s i on as the fi nal agenc y deci s i on. ” H

as s an v. G onz al es , 403 F. 3d 429, 433 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks
an d cit ati o n o m itted). B. A s yl um T h e S u p rem e C o u rtstat ed the s tand ard fo r gra n ti n g asy l um i n I
. N
. S. v. E l i as - Zacar i as : S e c t i o n 2 0 8 ( a ) o f t h e I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i t y Ac t [ I NA] , 8 U. S
. C. § 1158( a) , author i zes t he A t t orney G ener al , i n hi s di s cr et i on, t o gr antas y l um to a n a lie n w h o is a “ re f

u g e e ” a s d e f

in e d in th e A c t, i
. e. , an a lien w h o is u n a b le o r unw i l l i ng t o r etur n t o hi s hom e countr y “bec aus e of per s ecut i o n o r a w e l l
- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n t o f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, m em b ersh ip i n a part i cul ar so cial gro u p , o r po li ti ca l op inion
. ” § 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ), 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ). 502 U
. S. at481 ( 1992)
. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , t he S upr eme C our texpl ai ned th a t th e w e ll-fo u n d e d -f

e a r sta n d a rd in c lu d e s b o th a su b jec tiv e a n d a n o b

jec tiv e c o m p o n e n t, and al s o t hat t he s t andar d i s l es s t han a “mor e l i kel yt han not ” s t andar d. 480 U
. S. 421, 431 ( 1987)
. Pet i t i onerar gues t hatt he i m m i gr at i on j udge fa i l ed t o pr oper ly ap p ly the l egal
s t andar d foras y l um . W e di s agr ee.No. 06-3075 7

T he i m m igr at i on j udge cons i der ed pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyand det erm i ned that pet i t i onerw as cr edi bl e. T he j udge then appl i ed the fa ct s of pet i t i oner ’ s cas e t o t he pr oper l egal s t andar d foras y l um and conc l uded that pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony di d not s uppor ta fi ndi ng ei t herof pas tper s ecut i on orof a w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut ion. T he j udge
e x p lain e d th a t p e tit io n e r e x h ib ited a su b jec tiv e f e a r o f b e in g p e rse c u ted if h e re tu rn s to A l bani a, b u t tha tt he l i m i t ed fa ct s pr es ent ed i n pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony , w i t houtfur ther
e v id e n c e o f

p e rse c u tio n d ire c ted a t p e tit io n e r, d id n o t su f f icie n tlysu p p o rt a f

in d in g o f a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n . See Li t i v. G onz al es , 4 1 1 F .3 d 6 3 1 , 6 4 0 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ W h ile
r ecogni zi ng t hatcorr obor at i on i s notr equi r ed, w e have al s o s t at ed t hateven i f the appl i cant i s cr edi bl e, ‘ [t ] he abs ence of [r eas onabl yavai l abl e] corr obor at i ng evi dence ca n lead t o a fi ndi ng t hatan appl i canthas fai l ed t o m eetherbur den of p roof. ’ ”) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal )
. W e have cons i der ed pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyand the appr opr i at e l egal
s t an d ard s foras y l um , and w e fi nd thatthe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o denyas y l um w as
s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om the r ecor d. C . W i t hhol di ng of

R em oval A s t o pet i t i oner ’ s r eques t fo r w it hhol di ng of r emoval , t he i m m i gr at i on j udge concl uded that“[b] eca us e [pe t i t i oner ] has nots at i s fi ed the l ow erbur den of pr oof foras y l um t he C o u rt fin ds t hat[pet i t i oner ] has notes t abl i s hed hi s hi gherbur den of pr oof for
w i t hhol di ng of r emoval
. . . . ” W e agr ee.No. 06-3075 8

D . C onvent i on A gai nst T ort ure ( C A T ) and V ol untar y D epart ure Pet i t i onerdevot ed hi s br i ef t o t he i s s ue of a s y l um and di d notpr es entanyaddi t i onal
ar gum ent s as t o how t he i m m igrat i on j udge err ed i n deny i ng pet i t i oner ’ s C A T cl ai m or request for vo l un t ary dep arture. W e hav e revi ew ed the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’s anal y si s of t hese i s s ues and fi nd bot h t hatt he anal y s i s w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and w as w i thout
erro r. T he p et i t i on for r eview i s DENI ED
.