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: 08a0741n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 3, 2008 No. 07-3940 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

AN JEZ A M YF TA RI ; SO KO LMY FTA RI ; B ESA M Y F T A R I, Pe tit ion e rs , v. MI CH AE LB . M UK

ASE Y, Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF A D E CI SI O N O F T HE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

BEF OR E: RO G ER S, SU TTON , a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. Anjeza M y ftari, on behalf of herself and he r husband, Sokol My ft ari , a nd da ug hte r, B e sa

My ft ari , s e e ks re vie w of an ord e r of the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls (“B I A”) upholding the I mmigration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) de nial of her application for

asylum, withholdi ng and re moval, and prote ction under the United Nations Convent i o n Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”)

. Be cause substantial evidenc e supports both the I J ’s and the B I A’s dec ision, we DENY the petition for r eview. I The My ftaris a

re natives and citiz ens of Albania. Mrs. My ftari a nd her da ug hter e ntere d the United States without valid trave l documents on Octobe r 29, 2001. Mr. My ftari e ntere d the United States pursuant to a nonimmigr ant visitor visa on May 13, 2002.The I NS was the a g ency

responsible for

immigration matters at the t ime of Mrs. My ftari’ s 1 aff irmative asylum application. On Marc h 1, 2003, the func tions of the former I NS w ere transfe rre d from the De partment of Justice to the newly -est ab l i s h ed Department of Homela nd Security

. See Homeland Sec urity

Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-926, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002)

. Although the marria g e cer emony occur red in January 1999, the marria g e wa s not reg istered 2 until S eptember

2000. -2- I n J uly 2002, Mrs. My ftari a ffirmatively soug ht asy lum with the I m migr ation & Natura liz ation Service , listi ng her husba nd an d d au g hter a s derivative be nefic iaries. She a lleg ed 1 that she wa s perse cuted a

nd would fac e future perse cution on the basis of her husband’s a ffiliation with the Democr atic Party (“D P”) in Albania. H er a pplication was de nied, and the matter wa s ref err ed to an I J for r emoval procee dings. Notices to Appea r charg ed Mrs. Mfy

tari and her daug hter with removability

for e ntry without valid travel docume nts, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7) (A)( i), and Mr. My ftari f or over staying his visa, see 8 U .S. C. § 12 27 (a )( 1) (B ). At the ma ste r c a le nd ar h e ari ngin Dec ember

2002, the My ftaris a dmitted the fac tual alleg ations contained in the Notices to Appe ar a nd

conce ded re movability

. Mrs. My ftari r enew ed her application for

asylum, and alternatively soug ht withholding of r emoval and pr otection under the CAT. A merits hea

ringwas he ld on Aug ust 30, 2005, Se ptember 14, 2005, a nd November

15, 2005. Mrs. My ftari testified that she and S okol My ftari became eng ag ed in J une 1998 and were ma rried in J anuar y 1999. I n Aug ust 1997, Mr. My ftari a ppare ntly took over his father’s business of running 2 a thre e-story hotel/restaur ant l ocate d in Tirana , Albania. The My ftaris re modeled the business a nd he ld a g ra nd op e nin g in Janu ary

19 98

. Mr s. My ft ari wo rk e d a lon g sid e he r h us ba nd a t th e re sta

ur a nt. Mrs. My ftari testified that her husband was an openly active member and financia l supporter of the DP i n Albania. A me mbership ca rd conf irmed that he ha d been a

member of

the DP sinceThe SP evolved out of the f ormer Communist Party

in Albania in 1991. 3 -3- 19 92 . F ur the r, the DP’ s he a dq

ua rt e rs wa s n e ar M r. My ft ari ’s re sta ur ant, and me mbe rs of

the pa rt y often patronized the restaur ant and he ld meeting s there. Ac c or din g to M rs . M y ft ari , h e r h us ba nd wa s h ome ill in Jun e 19 97 , be fo re the e le c tio ns in which the Socialist Party

(“SP”) c ame to powe r in A lbania in Aug ust 1997. At that time, the SP and 3 the DP w e re fi g hti ngfo r p ow e r. Mr s. My ft ari te sti fi e d th a t a fa mil y fr ie nd vo lun tee red to ob ta in some medication for Mr. My ftari, a nd that when the friend went to enter the My ftaris’ ve hicle, an explos ive detonate d. The fr iend was injured and the vehicle was destroy ed. Howe ver, Mr s. My ftari admitte d t h at she did not attempt to obtain an aff idavit confirming this incident from the injured fr ie nd . T he My ft ari s a lso a pp are ntl y re po rt e d the e xplos ion to the po lic e , bu t the y did no t kn owif any investigation was conduc ted. The My ftaris testified that they believed me mbers of the SP were

re sp on sib le fo r t

he bo mbi ng . M rs . M y ft ari te sti fi e d that the po lic e tol d he r that su c h thi ng s w ou ld happen if she w a s g o in g to s u

p p o rt th e D P. B u t M r . M y f ta r i u lt im a te ly a d mi tt e d th a t h e d id not know who had bombe d his vehicle. On April 7, 1999, af

ter the SP had won the elec tions and g ained powe r, the My ftaris testified that they rec eived a

n anony mous letter under

their door demanding pay ment of $150,000. One we ek later, Mr . My ftari r ece ived an a non y m o u s telephone c all at their home r eg ardingthe letter. Mr

. My ft ari tol d the c a lle r he did no t have the mon e y . Th e c a lle r a pp are ntl y sa id that th ey

had six

mon ths to p ay the mon e y . Mr s. My ft ari ini tia lly te sti fi e d tha t th e y re c e ive d o nly

on e te le ph on e c a llMr s. My ft ari fi rs t te sti fi e d th a t th e fi rs t c a lle r h a d a lso thr e a te ne d to de str oy the ir bu sin e ss, 4 bu t sh e la te r t e sti fi e d th a t th e thr e a t c a me only in th e sec on d c a ll. Th e fi rs t c a lle r a pp are ntl y on ly d e m an d e d

p aym e n to f

t h e m o n e y. At the hea

ring , there was some c onfusion as to some of the proof Mrs. My ftari of fer ed of 5 the building’ s destruction. She submitted a ce rtificate from the Ministry of Publi c Works dated “10.04.2001” stating that “ The Construction Police, B ranc h of Tira na, under decision no. 4, date d 16 .0 2. 19 99 , de str oy e d a B uil din g (B ar)

. . . p ro pe rt y of Mr . SO KO LMY F TA RI .” J.A. a t 63 6. Mr s. My ftari testified that this certificate was the orig inal document she had rece ived i n Fe bruar y 2000. Howeve r, whe n the I J asked he r how she c ould have ob t ained the doc ument in 2000 when it bore a date from 2001, Mrs. My ftari stated that the orig inal 2000 cer tificate w as in Albania a

nd that her hu sb and ha d b ro ug ht t

he 20 01 c e rt if

ic a te wh e n h e c a me to t

he Un ite d St a te s. -4- afte r re ceivingthe letter, but she later re called that they rec eived a second call in October 1999. She t e s t i f i e d t h a tt h e s e c o n d

c a l l e r t h r e a t e n e d t h a t t h e i r b u s i n e s s w o u l d b e d e s t r o ye d i f t h e y d i d n o tp a y. 4 I n the meantime, in De cem b er 1 9 9 9 , the My ftaris re ceive d an orde r fr om the Albanian g ov e rnme nt inf

or min g the m that the ir bu sin e ss wo uld be de str oy e d b e c a

us e the y ha d r e mod e le d it without permission. The My ftaris testified that they did have permits to remodel the pr operty . Mr. My ftari e x plained that they had obtained the se per

mits i n 1997, when the DP was in power , but the g ov e rnme nt a

pp are ntl y re fu se d to re c og nize the pr e vio us ly iss ue d pe rm its

. Th e My ft ari s and Mr s. My ftari’ s father

appar ently made sever al eff orts to pr event the de struction of the business. B ut it was ultimately

destroy ed in J anuar

y 2000—one month afte r they rec eived the g overnme nt o r d e r and thre e months after the second telephone call reque sting pay ment of $150,000. The My ftaris both testified 5 tha t th e y b e li e v e d th e d e s tr u c ti o n o f th e b u s in e s s w a s c o n n e c te d to th e SP an d th e demands for

m o n e y. On Se p te mb e r 9 , 2 0 0 1 , M r s . M y f ta r i te s ti f ie d th a t s h e an d h e r th e n - tw o - y e ar - o ld daug hter

wer e kidnape d while re turning from a f riend’s ne arby

home. S he testi fied that two men approac hed her a nd her da ug hter, g rabbe d them, rende re d t h em u n co nscious with some sort of che mical, and-5-

pushed them into the bac k seat of a vehicle. When Mrs. My ftari woke up, she testified that he r hands and fee t w ere tied and she hear d the men talking about selling her and her daug hter for pr ostitut ion. She and her daug hter wer e eventua lly put on a boat with other women and c hildren. The boat was stopped by

the I talian borde r patrol, and Mrs. My ftari told them that she had been kidnaped. She and her da ug hter we re the n able to voluntarily return to Alba

nia. When asked a

bout proof of the kidnaping , Mrs. My ftari testified that the I talian borde r patrol ag ents wrote out a

repor t, but she did not attempt to obta in a copy of it beca use she wa s in a state of shock. She also testified that she repor ted the kidnapingto the authorities i n Vl o ra , Albania, at whi c h p o in t s h e w a s to ld th a t t h e in c id e n t h a d

a lr e a dy b e e nr e p o rte d

to th e m b y

th e I ta lia n

a uth or iti e s. Mr s. My ft ari a dmi tte d that a wr itt e n re po rt wa s pr od uc e d b y the Al ba nia n a uth or iti e s, bu t sh e ha d no t ob ta ine d or su bmi tte d it be c a

us e sh e ha d to be ph y sic a lly pr e se nt i n A lba nia to o bta in it. As to any

connec tion between he r kidnaping and t h e S P , Mrs. My ftari a dmitted that her kidnaper s did not identify themselves or sa

y they wer e from the SP. She did testify that she hea

rd the two men discussing their boss, who had a lot of money

and had c onnections with the police de pa rtme nt. Th e me n a

pp are ntl y told Mrs. My ft ari that th e po lic e wo uld take c are of

the m. M rs . My ftari a dmitted that the m en d i d not mention the words “Socialist” or “ Socialist P arty ,” but she testified that she assumed they wer e connected to the S P beca use t hat was the party

in power at the t i m e o f t h e k i dn ap i n g. After the kidnaping incident, Mrs. My ft ar i p u rcha sed fake passpor ts for her self and he r daug hter, a

nd they left Albania

for the U nited States in October 2001.Both the I J and the B I A re fer red to the M y ft ar i s as “r espondents” a nd discussed the 6 “re spondents’”—plura l—failure to e stablish eligibility for a sy lum. B eca

use Mrs. My ftari wa s the lead applicant and Mr. My ftari and their daug hter wer e only listed a s derivative be nefic iaries of the a pp lic a tio n, we wi ll o nly

re fe r t o M rs . M y ft ari ’s —s ingula r— e lig ibi lity

fo r a sylum

. -6- At the me ri ts h e ari ng , b oth Mr . a nd Mr s. My ft ari te sti fi e d th a t th ey feared re tur nin g to Al ba nia be c a us e of the un sta

ble c on dit ion s th e re . M rs . M y ft ari ’s fathe r a lso e xpre sse d th is sentiment. Acc ording to Mrs. My ftari, the kidnaping of women a nd children w as still common. The My ftaris also fea

red mistreatment on the basis of their political af filiations and opinions, despite the fac t that the DP had re g ained powe r in Albania in the summer of 2005. Th e I J found

the My ft ari s r e mov a

ble and de nie d M rs . M y ft ari ’s a

pp licat ions f

or a sylum , withholding of r emoval, and pr otection under the CAT. The I J first found that the My ftaris we re not

c redi ble. I n a dd iti on

to d e ta ili nga

numbe r o f s pe c if

ic inc on sis te nc ie s and

omi ssi on s in

the ir testimo n y , s h e n o te d

th e “ la c k

o f r e a s o n a b ly e xp e c te d

c o r r o b o r a ti n g e v id e n c e . ” J. A

. a t 85. Mo re ov e r , t h e I J f

o u n d t h a tt h e M y f

t ar i s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a n e xu s b e t w e e nt h e i r

a l l e g e d p a st perse cution and their political opinion. The I J also noted that there had been a chang e in country 6

c on dit ion s in

Al ba nia su c h th a t e ve n if

the My ft ari s w e re fo un d c re dib le and estab lis he d p a st perse cution, they

would not be able to show a well-founde d fea

r of f uture perse cution. To the extent that the My ftaris c laimed they still fea red pe rsec ution in Alba n i a, the I J found their testimony too vag ue, spec ulative, and imprecise to establish a well-founded fear . The I J specific ally noted that Mr. My ftari ha d a per sonal relationship wit h Sali Ber isha, the lea der of the DP in Albania. Mrs. My ftari a

ppeale d the I J ’s decision to the BIA, and the B I A af firmed. I t found “no c lear

err or in the I mmigration J udg e’s a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination.” J .A. at 3. I t then “af firm[ed] the I mmigration J udg e’s a lternative de termination that t h e respondents failed to establish a ne x usI n her pe tition for re v i ew , Mrs. My ftari doe s not ex plicitly challeng e the de nial of her 7 a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o r w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l o r p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r t h e C A T

. E v e n i f s h e did , M rs . My ftari’ s failure to show a we ll-founded f ear of per secution base d on political opinion—w h i ch pr e c lud e s h e r e lig ibi lity fo r a sylum —w ou ld a lso pr e c lud e he r e lig ibi lity fo r w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l. Cas te lla no -C

ha c on v . I NS , 341 F.3d 533, 545 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (noting that a “g reat er q u antum of pr oo f i s r e qu ir e d a s to the lik e lih oo d o f p e rs e c uti on in t he c ount ry of risk

in o rd e r t o e sta

bli sh e lig ibi lity fo r w ith ho ldi ng ” a s o pp os e d to a sylum ). Mr s. My ft ari ’s fa ilure to s ho w a futur e thr e a t in Albania would a lso preclude her e ligibility for protec tion under the CAT. Althoug h an applica nt for CA T p ro te c tio n ne e d not “l ink the ha rm fa c e d w ithany

of the fi ve pr ote c te d g ro un ds e nume rate d in re la tio n to a

pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum and wi thh old ing ,” an a pp lic ant sti ll mus t e sta

bli shtha t sh e wo uld

“ mo r e li k e ly th an n o t” b e to rtu r e d if r e mo v e d to h e r c o u n tr y o f o r igin. Id. at 5 51. Mrs. My ftari cannot satisfy

this strict standard. -7- betwee n the har

m they suffe red or

fea r in Albania a

nd a prote cted g round.” Id. B e c a us e the My ft a ri s could not satisfy the lower burden of proof require d for a sy lum, the BIA also conc luded that they had failed to satisfy

the “c lear

probability ” standa

rd re quired for

withholding of r emoval or the “more likely than not ” st andar d require d for pr otection under the CAT. J .A. at 4. F inally , the B I A re jected a due proce ss challeng e to the I J ’s conduc t at the merits hea ring , finding no evidenc e that the I J was b i ased or that the My ftaris ha d been de nied a f ull and fair oppor

tunity to present their

claims for relief from re moval. Id. Mr s. My ft ari fi le d a time ly pe tit ion fo r r e vie w o f t

he B I A’ s d e c isi on

wi th thi s c ourt

. II Mrs. My ftari make s essentially two arguments in her petition for r eview. First, she a rg ues that she has e stablished her e ligibility for a sy lum. I n support of this argument, she cha lleng es the

7 I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n a

nd a lso a rgue s t hat sh e de mon str a te d p a st p e rs e c uti on in Albania a s a result of her husband’s association with the DP

. Second, Mrs. My ftari c ontends that the I J ’s fa ilure to take the oath of the A lbanian interp re t er at the second me rits hear ing a nd the interpre ter’s indisce rnible and inc ohere nt translations denied he r due pr ocess of law.-8-

A. Standard of

Review W h er e, as he re, the BIA has a dopted the I J ’s dec ision with additi onal commentar y , “we revie w t he decision of t he I J , as suppl emented by the BI A, as the final administrative order.” Ceraj v. Muk asey , 511 F.3d 583, 588 ( 6th Cir. 2007). We revie w questions of lawde novo. I d. But we revie w fa ctual finding s under the defe rential “ substantial evidence ” standa rd. Id. ; see also Zoarab v. Muk asey , 524 F.3d 777, 780 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Under this standa rd, the administrative finding s of fac t are “conc lusive” unless “a ny rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to c o n clude to the

c on tr ary .” 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); see also Koulibaly v. Muk asey , 541 F.3d 613, 619 ( 6th Cir. 2008). B. E lig ibil it y forAs ylu m Mr s. My ft ari fi rs t cha lle ng e s the a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on that sh e did

no t a de qu a te ly

e sta bli sh her e ligibility

for a sy lum. T h e Attorne y Gene ral ha s discretion to g rant a sy lum to a “re fug ee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (i). A r efug ee is a person who is outside her country of nationality and who is unable or unwilling to return to that countr y “be ca u s e o f per secution or a well-founde d fea

r of perse c u ti o n o n a c c o u n t o f r a c e , r e li g io n , n a ti o n a li ty , me mb e r s h ip in a p arti c u la r s o c ia l g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A). To establish past perse cution, an applica nt must show that she “was spe cifica lly targ eted by the g overnme nt for abuse based on one of the s tatutorily protec ted g rounds.” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F .3 d 2 75 , 2 85 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . A n a pp lic ant’ s de mon str a tio n o f p a st p e rs e c uti on c re a te s a re bu tta ble pr e su mpt ion

of a we ll- fo un de d fe ar o f f

utu re pe rs e c uti on . 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .1 3( b) (1 ); Ceraj , 511 F.3d at 592. Thi s presumption can be rebutted—and asy lum denied—only if the g overnme nt establishes “by a pre pondera

nce of the ev id e n ce that since the pe rsec ution occurr ed, conditions in the applica nt’sI

n cer tain circ umstances, a

n applicantfo r a s y l u m wh o “h as d em o n s t ra t edco mp el l i n g re as o ns 8 fo r b e ingun wi ll in g o r un abl e to r e tur n to the c ountr

y ari sin g ou t of

the se ve ri ty

of the pa st perse cution” may be g rante d asylum in the absence of a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(A) . Mrs. My ftari does not contend that this provision applies i n her c ase. -9- country have c hang ed to suc h an extent that the applicant no long er ha s a we ll-founded f ear of being perse cuted if he wer e to re turn.” Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (interna l 8 qu otatio n ma

rk s o mit te d) ; se e als o 8 C. F. R

. § 2 0 8.13(b)( 1)(i)( A) (pr oviding that a sy lum shall be denied if “ [t ]here has be en a f undamental c hang e in circumstanc es such that the a pplicant no long er has a w ell-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution in the applicant’s country of nationalit y ”). Alternatively , an applicant can obtain asy

lum based on a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution “by

showing that the fea r is subjectively

g enuine a

nd objectively

rea sonable.” Zoarab , 524 F.3d at 780. 1. Adverse Cre dib ility Dete rm ination The testimony of an asylum applicant may be sufficie nt to establish past p er s ecution or a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution, but only if the trier of fa ct finds that testimony cre dible. 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )( B )( ii) ; Ndrecaj v. M ukasey , 522 F.3d 667, 674 ( 6th Cir. 2008). We reviewan adver se cr edibility

deter mination, a s a fac tual finding , for substantial evide nce. Ceraj , 511 F.3d at 59 1; R a maj v. Gonzales , 4 6 6 F

. 3 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 7 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 )

. A nI J m ay b a s e a c r e d i bil ity deter mination on the totality

of circ umstances a

nd “all rele vant fac tors,” including the applicant’ s demea n o r , c an d o r , th e c o n s is te n c y a n d p la u s ib il it y o f h e r a c c o u n t, an d

th e c o n s is te n c y

b e tw een written and or al statements. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)( 1)(B )(iii). Howe ver, a cre dibilit y

deter mination “must be supported by specific rea sons a nd must be based upon issues that g o to the h ea rt o f t he applicant’ s claim.” Ramaj , 4 66 F .3 d at 52 7; se e als o Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 ( 6th Cir. 2004).The REAL I D Act of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (codified in scattered se ctions 9 of 8 U.S.C.), provides that c red i b ility deter minations may

be made “without reg ard to whe ther a n inconsistency , inacc urac y , or fa lsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a

pplicant’s cla im.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(B )(iii). Howe ver, this provision applies only to applications filed on or af t er M ay 11, 2005, Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F .3 d 921 , 925 n. 4 (6t h Cir. 20 06 ), and a c c or din g ly do e s n ot a pp ly in this case. -10- Discre pancie s that cannot be viewed as “a t t em pts by the applica

nt to enhance his claims of p e r s e c u t i o n ” h a v e n o b e ar i n g o n c r e d i b i l i t y. Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926.

9 Her e, subs t an t i al evidenc e supports the a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination. The I J cited sp e c if ic re a so ns fo r its de te rm inatio n tha t the My ft ari s we re no t cr e dib le , an d th e se re a so ns we nt t o the hea rt of Mrs. My ftari’ s claim for asy lum. For example, the I J noted t hat M rs. My ftari’ s orig inal

a sylum a pp lic a tio n n e ve r m e nti on e d h er hu sb and ’s pa rt ic ipatio n in

a po lit ic a l de mon str a tio n in Albania in 1991, duringwhich Mr. My ftari was appar ently injured and almost killed. This incident

was ra ised for the first time at the beg inning of Mr. M y ftari’ s testimony at t he merits hear ing. T he I J stressed the importance of this inconsistenc y , g iven the fa ct that the entire basis of Mrs. My ftari’ s claims was he r husband’s a ctivities with the DP. Moreover, the written asy lum application did not state that a pr ominent me mber of the SP offere d to buy Mr. My ftari’ s business for an e x tremely low sum of money approximately one month be fore the business was destroy ed. This e vent , t o o , was

n o tr a i s e d u n t i l M r . M yf

t ar i t e s t i f i e d a t t h e m e r i t s h e ar i n g . A n d e v e n w h e n M r . M yf t ar i d i d t e s t i f y, the I J noted that Mr. My ftari’ s various explanations fo r neg lecting to include the incident in the written asylum application wer e unper suasive. The I J also rec og nized the discrepa ncy betwee n Mrs. My ftari’ s testimony that the frie nd who was in ju r e d in th e v e h ic le b o mb in g w a s g o in g to o b ta in me d ic in e , an d

s tate me n ts in

th e w r itte n asylum application that the friend was going to pick up a doctor . Although the I J acknow ledg ed that-11-

this it self wa s not a critica l inc onsistency , the I J stated that she ha d “ca ref ully observe d” Mr. My ftari’ s demea

nor whe n questioned a b out it, and that Mr. My ftari a ppear ed to make up a

n exp l an at i o n afte r seve ral lea ding que stions by his attorney . Fur

ther, the I J noted Mrs. My ftari’ s inconsistent te stimony as to the number of threatening telephone calls they rec eived a fter the letter de mand ing$1 50 ,0 00 ha d be e n slip pe d und e r the ir do or . At fi rs t, Mr s. My ft ari state d the y ha d o nly

re c e ive d o ne c a ll, bu t sh e la te r c ha ng e d h e r t e sti mony

and state d th a t th e y

ha d r e c e ive d tw o c a lls

. I n addition, the I J noted the lac k of cor roborating e vidence offe red by Mrs. My ftari, including her f ailure to obtain a

ny aff idavit from t he inj ured friend confirming the ex plosion and her failure to obtain polic e reports related to her a lleg ed kidnaping . Given that the lac k of cor roborating evidenc e to support an asylum a pplicant’s statements is a fac tor that can be taken into ac count in a

cre dibilit y

deter mination, see Be rri v. Gonzales , 46 8 F .3 d 3 90 , 3 95 -9 6 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) , th e se fa c ts, too, support the I J ’s deter mination that Mrs. My ftari’ s story was not cr edible. Even a ssuming that some of the other more minor inconsistencies identified by the I J —such

a s d i s c r e p an c i e s r e g a

r d i n g d a t e s

— d i d

n o tg o t o t h e h e art o f M r s . M y f t ar i ’ s c l a i m f

o r a s y l u m , t h e IJ ide nti fi e d e no ug h s e ri ou s in c on sis te nc ies in th e te sti mony of bo th M r. and

Mr s. My ft ari . E ve n if the re may have be e n o the r e xplanatio ns fo r t he se inc on sis te nc ie s, we c ann ot s ay that any re a so na ble

a d j u d i c a t o r w o u l d h a v e b e e nc o mp e l l e d

t o c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e M yf

t ar i s w e r e c r e d i b l e . A c c o r d i n g l y,

we a ffirm the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination. 2. P ast P erse cution and Well-F ound ed F ear of F uture P erse cution Al tho ug h th e I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingits e lf

wo uld have pr e c lud e d a

fi nd ingof

pa st pe rs e c uti on

or a we ll- fo un de d fe ar of futur e pe rs e c uti on , the I J of fe re d two a lte rn a tiv e ba se s for its denial of a sy lum: 1) Mrs. My ftari failed t o show a nex us betwee n any past perse cution and politicalWe also rec og nize that poli t i ca l o p i n i ons for whic h Mrs. My ftari c laims to have bee n 10 punished are in fac t her husband’ s; as a re sult, her claim could b e cha rac terized as one ba sed on imputed politi cal opinion. I ndeed, it is curious that Mrs. My ftari, a nd not her husband, w as the lea d applicant f

or asylum. Neither this court nor the Supreme Court h as d ec i ded whe ther imputed political opinions m ay

form the basis of an asylum c laim. See P ascual v. Muk asey , 514 F.3d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 2007). We need not r esolve that que stion today , howeve r, bec ause Mr s. My ftari ha s not established that any

alleg ed p er s ec u t ion was on ac count of he r political opinion, “imputed or otherwise.” Id. at 487. -12- opinion, and 2) even if she could show such a nexus, there had been such a chang e in the conditions in Albania that she c ould not establish a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. W e re vi ew an administrative deter

mination that the petitioner failed to es t ab l ish eligibility for a sy lum for substantial evidence

. Ceraj , 511 F.3d at 588. First, we note brief

ly that Mrs. My ftari did not pre sent enoug h evidenc e to compel the conclusion that she suff

er ed past pe rsec ution on account of political opinion. Both she a nd Mr. 10 My ft ari a dmi tte d th a t th e y did no t kn owwh o p la c e d a bo mb i n th e ir

ve hicle. T he y

a lso bo th admi t t ed that the letter de manding pay ment of $150,000 wa s anony mous. Further , there was a n alternative explanation for the destruction of their business: failure to obtain the proper permits for remode ling. Mrs. My ftari also admitted that neither of her kidnaper s menti o n ed t h e w ord “Socialist,” nor did they

g ive her any rea son to be lieve that they wer e members of the SP or that they

w e r e k i dn a

p i n g h e r b e c a u s e o f h e r o r h e r h u s b an d ’ s a s s o c i a t i o nw i t h t h e D P

. A n d a s t h e B IA conclude d, a re asonable adjudicator could have conclude d that much of the a lleg ed per secution wa s motivated more by

the My ftaris’ pe rce ived wea lth and ability to pay , not their political opinion. But e ven we re w e to conc lude that Mrs. My ftari c ould establish past perse cution on acc ount of po lit ic a l opin ion , sub sta nti a l evi de nc e su

pp or ts the c on c lus ion that cha

ng e d co nd iti on s in

Al ba nia

r e b u t t e d an y p r e s u mp t i o no f

a w e l l

- f o u n d e d f e ar o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . A s b o t h t h e IJ an d t h e B IA-13-

noted, the re cord evidence of country conditions in Albania indicated that the DP returne d to power

a ft e r t he g e ne ra l e le c tio ns in 2 00 5, and the My ft ari s a dmi tte d th is f a c t. We have “ re pe a te dly conclude d that the conditions in Albania have improved to such a n extent that there is no objective basis for a

well-founde d fea

r of future perse cution based on political . . . be liefs.” Ceraj , 511 F.3d

a t 59 3; see also Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 676 (“[O]n t he basis of published repor ts of Albania’ s politi cal de ve lop me nt, we hav e pr e vio us ly state d th a t th e c on dit ion s in Al ba nia are ‘f un dame nta lly

c ha ng e d. ’” ); Ramaj , 466 F.3d at 531 (“[C] ountry conditions in Albania have improved to the point that any presumption of a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution is rebutted.”). As a re su lt o f t hes e chang e d c on dit ion s, Mr s. My ft ari ’s su bje c tiv e fe ars of

re tur nin g to Albania we re insuff

icient to support an objectively rea sonable fear of future perse cution, let alone to compel such a

finding . An applica

nt “ca nnot rely on speculative conclusions or mere asser tions of fe ar of possible persec ution, but ins tead must offe r re asonably specific information s howing a re al threat of individual perse cution.” Ndrecaj , 5 2 2 F. 3 d at 6 7 6 (q u o t i n g Mapouya v . Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 412 (6th Cir. 2007)). And the possibility that the SP may

return to powe r at some unspe cified time in the future wa s much too speculative. See id. (n oti ngtha t a pp lic ant w ho fe are d th a t So c ia lis ts would return to powe r in Albania in the f uture lac ked a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution). Be cause the I J ’s and the B I A’s alter native conc lusions each pr ovide an indepe ndent basis for the de nia l of

a sylum , w e a ff

ir m th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on on tho se g ro un ds a s w e ll. C. Due P r oc e ss C lai m F i n a l l y , M r s . M y f

t ar i ar g u e s t h a t s h e w a s d e p r i v e d o f a f u l l an d f a i r h e ar i n g b e c a

u s e t h e IJ did no t put the Al ba

nia n langua g e int e rp re te r un de r oath a t the se c on d me ri ts he ari ng and be c a us e

sever al of the interprete r’s translations appea red as incoher ent, i ncomplete, and indiscernible in theI n one sente nce of her br ief, Mrs. My ftari a lso asserts t hat t he I J chilled t he witnesses’ rig ht 11 to t e sti fy by qu e sti on ingthe m a t th e he ari ng . Pe t’ r B r. a t 13

. Becaus e sh e do e s n ot d e ve lop thi s argument any further , she has wa ived it. United States v. Sandridge , 385 F.3d 1032, 1035 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (“ I s s u es adver

ted to in a per functory

manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at deve loped argumentation, are deeme d waived.” ). -14- transcr ipt. Howeve r, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mrs. My ftari’ s due proc ess claim bec ause she

11 did not raise it befor e the B I A. We only have the authority to r eview c laims properly prese nted to the B I A and c onsidered on the merits. Sterkaj v. G onzales , 4 3 9 F

. 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 9 ( 6 t h C i r. 20 06 ); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (providing that fede ral c ourts cannot e x erc ise jurisdiction over an a ppeal of a fina l order of

remova l wh e re the a lie n ha s fa ile d to exha us t all ad min istra tiv e re me die s)

. “ Al tho ug h an a lie n’ s due pr oc e ss challeng e g ener ally

does not requir e ex h au s t i on . . . , the alien must raise corr ecta ble proc edura l

err ors to the B I A.” Sterkaj , 439 F.3d at 279. All of Mrs. My ftari’ s claims involving the inter prete r’s oath and the qua lity

of the interpr etation and tr an scription could have been r aised be fore , and

corr ecte d by , the B I A. See Se drakyan v . Gonzales , 2 3 7 Fe d

. Ap p x . 76, 79-80 (6th Cir. 2007) (r e fu sin g to a dd

re ss p e tit ione r’ s d

ue pr oc e ss a

rgume nt r e g ard ingtr ans la tio n p ro ble ms b e c a us e pe tit ion e r fa ile d to ra ise it wi th t he B I A) ; Cela v. Gonzales , 205 Fe d. Appx. 376, 384-85 (noting that the c ourt la c ke d jur isd ic tio n to re vie w pe tit ion e r’ s du e pr oc e ss c la ims inv olv in g inade qu a te int e rp re ta tio n b e c a

us e of pe tit ion e r’ s fa ilure to exha us t a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s) . A c c or din g ly , M rs . My ftari’ s failure to exhaust her administrative re medies keeps us from re viewing the merits of he r du e pr oc e ss c la ims

. III For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY the petition for re view.