2010 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 7-23-2010 

# M arin Ali a j v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2787

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M arin Al i a

j v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 900. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/900BL D- 2 2 4 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2787

___________ M A R IN A L IA J, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 094- 927- 370) I m m i gr at i on J udge: Fr eder i c G . L eeds

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J une 17, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y23, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerM ar i n A l i aj , a ci t i zen of A l bani a, s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval . A l i aj fea r s per s ecut i on i n A l bani a bas ed on hi s pas tpol i t i cal act i vi t i es . T heA ccor di ng t o t he St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2006 A s y l um Pr ofi l e forA l bani a, “dur i ng t he 1 Co mmu n i s tr e i g n f

r o m 1 9 4 5 t o 1 9 9 0 . . . mo s tAl b a n i a n s s u f f e r e d u n d e ra r e g i me c h a ra c te ri z e d b yp o lic e b ru ta lity a n d c o n c e n tr a tio n a n d la b o r c a m p s .” (A .R . 1 8 8 .) B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( B IA ) fo u n d n o clea r error in the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, and i tdeni ed al l r el i ef. T he G overnm enthas m oved for s um m aryaff

i r m ance of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e gr antthe mo t i o n a n d wi l l d e n yAl i a j ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I. A li aj en tered the U n it ed S tat es in N o v em b er 2 0 0 6 , w h en h e w as e igh teen y ea rs ol d. A ta hea r i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge, A l i aj t es t i fi ed thathe w as born i n an A l b a n i a n c o n c e n tr a t i o n c a m p . A l i a j t e s t i f i e d th a ts e v e r a l m e m b e r s o f h i s f a m i l y - 1 in c lu d in g h is g ra n d f

a th e r, f a th e r, u n c le, a n d sis ter - w e re p e rse c u ted f o r th e ir a n tiC om m uni s t/ Soci al i s tbel i efs . Speci fi cal l y , A l i aj r ece i ved anonym ous death thr eat s aft er campai gni ng forthe D emocr at i c Partyi n a l ocal el ect i on. I n addi t i on, A l i aj ’ s s i s t erw as arr es t ed on thr ee s epar at e occ as i ons “bec aus e s he w as w or ki ng forthe C hr i s t i an D emocr at i c Party . ” W hi l e i n det ent i on fol l ow i ng herthi r d arr es t , A l i aj ’ s s i s t erw as r aped b yp o lice o f

f ice rs. A liaj te stif

ied th a t h e f

e a rs r e m o v a l b e c a u se th e S o c ialists “ k n o w th a t I

. . . w or ked forthe D emocr at i c Party. . . [s ] o i f I am t o r eturn, theyw i l l t ar getm e aga i n. ” T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e f o u n d A liaj’s tes tim o n yto lac k c re d ib ili tya n d d e n ied h is appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gainstT orture ( C A T ). T he B IA dis m i ssed A l i aj ’s app eal . In uph oldi ng the ad verseW hi l e the G overnm entaks for“s um m aryaff i r m ance , ” w e under s t and i tt o be as ki ng 2 f o rs u mm a r yd e n i a l o f

th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, the B I A r el i ed on fourdi s t i ncti ncons i s t enci es and/ orom i s s i ons i dent i fi ed bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge: ( 1) “w hi l e the r es pondentt es t i fi ed thathi s s i s t erhad b e e n ra p e d in N o v e m b e r o r D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 6 b e c a u se o f h e r p o lit ica l in v o lv e m e n t, he d id notdes cr i be thi s m att eri n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on atal l ”; ( 2) “compar ed w i th the r es pondent ’ s cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew and as y l um appl i cat i on, the r es pondentt es t i fi ed di ffe r ent l yaboutw hen he r ece i ved thr eat s ”; ( 3) “[the r es pondent ] di d notm ent i on goi ng i nt o hi di ng i n hi s per s onal s t at ement ”; and ( 4) “[ther e w as ] a di s cr epanc yas t o w hether th e th re a ts w e re d ire c ted to th e re sp o n d e n t’s f a th e r, o r w h e th e r th e yw e re d ire c ted to him . ” F urtherm ore, the B IA fou nd no cl ear errori n the I m m i grat i on Judg e’s adv ers e c o rro b o ra tio n f

in d in g , an d it d e ter m in e d th a t A liaj h a d n o t m e t h is b u rd e n in d e m o n s tr a tin g e lig ib ility f o r p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C A T . A l i aj pet i t i oned forourr evi ew . T he G overnm entm oved fors um m aryaff i r m ance of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. A l i aj has notfi l ed an oppos i t i on t o thatm ot i on. 2 II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e w hen “no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on” i s pr es ent ed byan appe al . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I.O .P . 1 0 .6 ; s e e a ls o C ra d le v . U .S . e x re l. M in e r, 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). III . W e w ill g ra n t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n f o r su m m a rya f

f irm a n c e b e c a u se th isA l i aj does ar gue, w i thoutexpl anat i on, thathe “r emai ned cons i s t enti n the chr onol ogy 3 of eve nt s . ” B yi t s el f, thi s cont ent i on i s gr os s l yi ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thatthe c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n is n o t su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . In a d d iti o n , w e n o te that A l i aj uses the m aj ori tyof h i s bri ef t o argue for the p ropri et yof “su rpr i se w i tnesses” i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . T hi s ar gum enti s i m pert i nent . A l i aj w as notpr event ed fr om h av ing h is si ster, o r an yo ther w itn ess, t esti fyb ef o re the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e. R athe r, A l i aj ’ s tr i al couns el and the G overnm entagr eed, forr eas ons unknow n, thatA l i aj ’ s s i s t er w o u ld n o t tes tify . In a n ye v e n t, i t ap p e a rs th a t th is lin e o f a rg u m e n t w a s n o t p ro p e rly ex h au sted b ef

o re the B IA . S ee H o x h a v . H o lder, 55 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). a p p e a l p re se n ts n o “ su b sta n tial q u e stio n .” T h e h e a rt o f th e B IA ’s d e c isio n is its c o n c lu sio n th a t th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g is n o t cle a rly err oneous . N everthel es s , A l i aj us es onl ys even s ent ence s of hi s br i ef’ s ar gum ents ect i on t o addr es s the cr edi bi l i tyi s s ue. A nd none of thos e s ent ence s m ount s a cha l l enge t o thr ee of the fouri ncons i s t enci es / om i s s i ons i dent i fi ed bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge and r el i ed upon bythe B I A i n di s m i s s i ng the appe al . A l i aj does notdi r ectouratt ent i on t o por t i ons of the 3 admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d i n or dert o expl ai n orcont es tthe appa r ent i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s / o mi s s i o n s . He c i t e s n o r e l e v a n ts t a tu t e s o rc a s e l a w t o s u p p o r tth e f e w, g e n e ra liz e d p o in ts th a t h e d o e s m a k e . O urr ol e i s nott o m ake a r gum ent s forthe part i es , es peci al l ythos e r epr es ent ed by couns el . W e dee m A l i aj ’ s s par e br i efi ng t o have e ffe ct i vel yw ai ved anychal l enge t o t he B I A ’ s rul i ng conce r ni ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. See H oxha v. H o lder, 55 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 1 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . As a r e s u l t , a n d b e c a u s e Al i a j d o e s n o tc o n t e s tth e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f CA T pr ot ect i on, thi s appea l pr es ent s “no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. ”A ccor di ngl y , the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on i s gr ant ed, and w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on

f o r r e v ie w .