FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 31, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15781 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 133- 609 A R D I A N A G A S H I , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on forR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M ay 31, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A rdi ana G as hi , an A l bani an K osov ar , pet i t i on s throu gh coun se l for r evi ew of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a f f i r m i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng he ra ppl i c a t i on fora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd r e l i e f unde rthe C o n v en ti o n A g ain st T o rtu re (“C A T ”) . O n ap p ea l, G as h i arg u es th at th e I J’s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on w a s nots uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd thatshe m ether burden t o sho w ent i t l em entt o asy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A and t o C A T re l i ef . W e have j uri sdi cti on t o revi ew a f i nal order of re m ov al of a vi saw ai ver p r o g r a m a p p lic a n t. Se e Nr e ka v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 40 8 F . 3d 13 61 , 13 67 (11th C i r. 2005) . W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e x te n t th a t th e B I A e x p r e s s ly a d o p ts th e I J ’s d e c is io n . A l Na jja rv . A s h c ro

ft , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . H e r e , the B I A a dopt e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on; thus w e r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n a s w e ll. Se e i d. I . ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW

“ T o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on w a s ba s e d on al e ga l de t e r m i na t i on, [o u r] rev i ew i s de no vo . ” D -M uh um ed v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v ie w fa c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n s u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, ho w ever , and “ m ustaf

fi rm the B IA ’ s dec i si on i f i ti s s up po rt ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” I d. at3

81 7-18 . C re di bi l i ty det er m i nat i on s are l i kew i se re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al e v id e n c e te s t. I

d. a t 8 1 8 . “T h e tr ie ro f

fa c t m u s t d e te r m in e c r e d ib ility , a n d th is [ C ]o u r t m a y n o t s u b s titu te its ju d g m e n t fo rth a t o f th e B I A w ith r e s p e c t to cr edi bi l i ty f

i nd i ng s. ” I

d. U l t i m at el y, “ the adm i ni stra t i ve fi nd i ng s of fac tar e c o n c lu s iv e u n le s s a n y r e a s o n ab le a d ju d ic a to rw o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to the contrary [. ] ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(4)(B). T hu s, “ [t ] o revers e the IJ ’ s fac t fi nd i ng s, w e m ustfi nd thatthe re cord no ton l y s up po rt s r ever sa l , bu tcom pel s i t . ” M e ndoz a v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I I . DI S C US S I ON A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n ori s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y a ppl y for a s y l um . 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he S e c r e t a r y of H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty orthe A tt or ne y G e ne r a l m a y gr a nta s y l um i f the a l i e n m e e t s the I N A ’ s de f i ni t i on of

“ re fugee. ” I

d. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A “r e f u g e e ” is any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntry of such pers on ’ s n ati on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lit y , i s o u t s i d e a n y c o u n tr y in w hi c h su ch pe r s on l a s tha bi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r e tur n t o, a nd i s una bl e o runw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, th at co u n try beca use of per se cut i on or a w e l l

- fo u n d e d fe a ro f

p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p in a par t i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l opi ni on. I d . § 1 10 1(a) (42)(A ). T he bu rden i s on the al i en t o est abl i sh thatshe i s are fugee by offe ri ng “ cr edi bl e, di re ct , and speci fi c e vi dence i n the re cord. ” F orgue v . U . S.4

A t t ’ y G e n. , 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ; se e 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 . 13 (a ); 12 08 . 13 (a ). S peci fi ca l l y, “ the al i en m ustes t abl i sh a ‘ w el l -fou nd ed fe ar ’ that. . . her pol i t i ca l op i ni on (or other s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or) w i l l ca use har m or suff er i ng thatri se s t o the l evel of ‘ pers ec ut i on . ’ ” A lNaj j ar , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . “[ P ]e r s e c u tio n is a n e x tr e m e c o n c e p t, r e q u ir in g m o r e th a n afe w is o la te d in c id e n ts o f v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n ,” a n d “m e r e h a r a s s m e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to pers ec ut i on . ” Se

pul v e da v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( in te r n a l q u o te s a n d a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) . “[ E ]v id e n c e th a t e ith e ris c o n s is te n t w ith a c ts o f

p r iv a te v io le n c e o rth e p e titio n e r ’s fa ilu r e to c o o p e r a te w ith g u eri l l as, o r th atm erel y sh o w s th ata p erso n h as b een a v i ct i m o f cri m i n al act i v i ty, do es no tconst i tut e e vi dence of pers ec ut i on base d o n a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd . ” R uiz v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 44 0 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 58 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . If the al i en es t abl i shes pastpers ec ut i on i n a coun try , i ti s pre sum ed thather l i fe orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d upon ar e tur n t o tha tc ountr y , unl e s s the g o v er n m en t sh o w s b y a p re p o n d er an ce o f th e e v id en ce th at th e c o u n try’s c ondi t i ons ha ve c ha nge d s uc h tha tthe a l i e n’ s l i fe orf r e e dom w oul d no l onge rbe thr e a t e ne d, ortha tthe a l i e n c oul d r e l oc a t e w i thi n the c ountr y a nd i tw oul d be r e a s ona bl e t o e xpe c the rt o do s o. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( b) ; 1208. 13( b) . A n a l i e n w ho ha s nots how n pa s tpe r s e c ut i on i n he rc ountr y m a y s t i l l be e nt i t l e d t o a s y l um i f s he5

ca n d em on stra t e afuture threa tt o h erl i fe or fr ee do m on a prot ec t ed grou nd i n that c o u n tr y . Se e i d. § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; 1 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; R u iz , 44 0 F . 3d at12 58 . T he fe ar o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n , h o w e v e r , m u s t b e “b o th s u bje c tiv e ly g e n u in e a n d o bje c tiv e ly re as on abl e. ” R u iz , 4 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 7 . G a s h i c h a lle n g e s th e I J ’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t h e rte s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le . T h e te s tim o n y o f

a n a p p lic a n t, if

c r e d ib le , m a y b e s u f

f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h e lig ib ility fo ra s y lu m e v e n in th e a b s e n c e o f c o rr o b o r a tin g e v id e n c e . D -M uh um ed , 388 F . 3d a t818- 19. “ C onve r s e l y , a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on a l one m a y be suff i ci entt o sup po rtthe deni al of an as yl um appl i ca t i on . ” F orgue , 40 1 F . 3d at 12 87 . “ Indi ca t i on s of r el i abl e t es t i m on y i ncl ud e c on si st ency on di re ct e xa m i na t i on, c ons i s t e nc y w i th the w r i tt e n a ppl i c a t i on, a nd the a bs e nc e of em bel l i shm ent s. ” R u iz , 440 F . 3d a t1255. H e r e , the I J found a n “ ove rr i di ng concern” i n G as hi ’ s “ ho nesty or l ac k o f hon es ty thatshe . . . engaged i n as faras her tra nsi tt o the U ni t ed S t at es . ” H e not ed that , du ri ng an i nt er vi ew w i th an i m m i gr a t i on of

f i c e ra tthe a i rpor tw he r e s he w a s i nt e r c e pt e d w i th af r a udul e nt pass po rt , G as hi fa l se l y s t at ed thatshe had com e t o the U ni t ed S t at es t o m ee ther fi ance . T he IJ further fou nd thatG as hi ’ s des cr i pt i on s of var i ou s a tt ac ks up on her by m as ked o r uni dent i fi ed m en i n F ebruary and N ov em ber of 200 2 w er e notcl ear and con si st ent , and the IJ expres se d “ di ff i cul ty i n b ei ng abl e t o ass es s e xactl y w hat is r e a l a n d w h a t is n o t in [ G a s h i’s ] c a s e . . . .”6

“ O nc e a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng i s m a de , the bur de n i s on the a ppl i c a nt al i en t o sho w thatthe IJ ’ s c re di bi l i ty dec i si on w as no tsupp ort ed by ‘ spec i fi c, cogentre as on s’ or w as no tbase d o n sub st ant i al evi dence. ” F orgue , 40 1 F . 3d at 1 2 8 7 . A s i n d i cat ed ab o v e, th e IJ d i d o ffer sev eral reaso n s fo r h i s ad v erse c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on, butthe r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tthe I J di d notc ons i de ra l l of G as hi ’ s t es t i m on y a s t o p as tpers ec ut i on . T he IJ apparent l y di d con si der the m ore re ce ntevent s t o w hi ch G as hi t es t i fi ed, such as : the ki l l i ng of G as hi ’ s c ou si n; an att ac k i n F ebruary of 20 02 w here a m as ked m an i n a bl ac k carfol l ow ed the car G a s h i a n d h e ru n c le w e r e d r iv in g a n d b e g a n s h o o tin g a t th e m ; a n d a n a tta c kin N ov em ber of 200 2 w here a “ fa ce l es s” m an and h i s par t ner threa t ened t o t orture G ash i an d tri ed t o k i d n ap G ash i b y p u l l i n g h er i n t o th ei r car. A cco rd i n g t o th e IJ, th er e w as li ttle to in d icate th at th es e e v en ts h ad an yth in g to d o w ith G as h i’ s affi l i at i o n w i th th e D em o crat i c L eag u e o f K o so v o (“ L D K ”), o r w i th “ an yth i n g el se h av i n g t o d o w i th th e l eg al st an d ard s i n v o l v i n g p o l i t i cal asyl u m . ” T h e IJ al so not e d tha tthe r e s tof

G a s hi ’ s fa m i l y ha d c ont i nue d t o l i ve i n K os ovo, a nd tha tthe L D K c o n tin u e s to e x is t a s av iab le p o litic a l p a r ty . T he IJ di d n ot , ho w ever , m ake a ny si gn i fi ca ntm ent i on of G as hi ’ s other testim o n y a s to p as t p er se cu ti o n , i n clu d in g : th e s eizu re an d to rtu re o f G as h i’ s fa the r( at e a c he ra nd L D K s pe a ke r ) by S e rbs m or e tha n f i f t e e n t i m e s dur i ng the 1980s a nd 90s ; a n i nc i de nti n A pr i l of 1987 w he n S e rbi a n pol i c e of f i c e r s br oke7

i nt o G a s hi ’ s hom e , be a the rfa the r , m othe r , unc l e , he r s e l f , a nd he rbr othe r , a nd t ook her uncl e a nd fa ther t o p ri son; the expu l si on of G as hi , her fam i l y, and o ther A l ba ni a n K os ovar s f

r om the i rhom e s by S e rbi a n pol i c e of f i c e r s on M a r c h 24, 1999 ( th e h o m e s w e r e th e n b u r n e d ) ; th e fo r c in g o f th o u s a n d s o f

A lb a n ia n K o s o v a r s in to tr uc ks , a tgunpoi nt , t o be de por t e d; G a s hi ’ s m othe rha vi ng t o pa y 500 de ut s c he m a rks dur i ng the de por t a t i on s o tha tG a s hi ’ s fa the rw oul d notbe ki l l e d; a nd the s e i z ur e of

G a s hi ’ s m othe r , s i s t e r( w ho w a s the n 17) , a nd c ous i ns by s ol di e r s w ho he l d the m c a pt i ve fora ppr oxi m a t e l y t e n da y s a nd r a pe d the m . G a s hi subm i tt ed copi es of m edi ca l re po rt s c on fi rm i ng thather m other a nd si st erw er e e xa m i ne d on A pr i l 3, 1999, a nd e xhi bi t e d s i gns of r a pe , s e xua l a s s a ul t , a nd p h y s i c a l ab u s e . Th e 2 0 0 2 Co u n tr y Re p o r ts u b mi tt e d b y G a s h i a l s o p r o v i d e s s o me generalcorr ob orati on , st ati ng that“ [i ] n ear l y 199 9, l ar ge nu m bers of K osov ar A l ba ni a ns f

l e d the i rhom e s , m a ny of w hi c h w e r e s ubs e que nt l y de s tr oy e d, e s c a pi ng Y ugos l a v a nd S e rbi a n for c e s . ” T he C ountr y R e por tf ur the ra c know l e dge s the i ndi c t m e nta nd tr i a l of

num e r ous S e rbi a n of

f i c i a l s a nd pa r a m i l i t a r y m e m be r s for the abdu cti on , t orture, and/ or m urder of M usl i m s a nd A l bani ans i n the 19 90 s, as w e l l a s “ the e xi s t e nc e of m a s s gr a ve s c ont a i ni ng bodi e s pr e s um e d t o be thos e of e th n ic A lb a n ia n s k ille d in K o s o v o a n d tr a n s fe rr e d to m a s s g r a v e s in S e rb iainThe IJ ’s referenceto Gashi’s psycholog ical evaluation was also extremely brief. 1 Notably , the clinical psycholog ist who ex amined Ga shi concluded that she exhibi ted a posttraumatic stress disorder, that “her story was internally

consistent,” and that “her aff ect at the time of the interview. . . and psycholog ical symptoms were a ppropriateto the objective finding s.” 8 1 9 9 9 . ” T h e IJ o ffered n o ex p l an at i o n as t o w h y G ash i ’ s t est i m o n y as t o th ese e v e n ts w a s n o t c r e d ib le , a n d m a d e o n ly ap a s s in g r e fe r e n c e to th e C o u n tr y R e p o r t. 1

“ [A n] IJ m ust[] consi der a ll evi dence i ntrodu ce d b y the appl i ca nt . ” F orgue , 401 F . 3d a t1287. M or e ove r , w he r e a n a ppl i c a nti ntr oduc e s e vi de nc e of p e r s e c u tio n b e y o n d h e ro w n te s tim o n y , “th e I J m u s t c o n s id e rth a t e v id e n c e , a n d it is n o t s u f f ic ie n t fo rth e I J to r e ly s o le ly o n a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n in tho se i nst ance s. ” I

d. H e r e , th e r e c o r d s u g g e s ts th a t th e I J d id n o t c o n s id e ra ll ev i d en ce su b m i tt ed b y G ash i , m u ch o f w h i ch w as rel ev an tt o h er cl ai m o f p ast pers ec ut i on . F urtherm ore, the IJ ’ s dec i si on focuse d al m ostexcl usi vel y on w hether G as hi w as pers ec ut ed base d o n h erL D K af fi l i ati on , bu tG as hi al so cl ai m ed p er se cu ti o n o n th e b as is o f h erA lb an ian eth n icity. C o n trar y to w h at th e B IA ’s o p i n i o n st at es, th e IJ si m p l y d i d n o tm ak e an y cl ear o r co g en tfi n d i n g as t o p ast pers ec ut i on on thi s a l t er nat i ve grou nd , other than t o st at e s um m ar i l y thatG as hi had no tdem on stra t ed el i gi bi l i ty “ for the form of re l i ef thatshe has as ked for. ” I I I . C ON C L US I ON T h e I J ’s fa ilu r e to e v a lu a te a ll o f G a s h i’s c la im e d b a s e s fo ra s y lu m , a n d to c o n s id e ra ll o f

th e e v id e n c e s u b m itte d , c o n s titu te s r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . Se e F orgue ,If, for example, a consideration of all the evidenc e submitted by Gashi reveals that she 2 suffered pa st persecution on the basis of anystatutorily established factor, Ga shi would be entitled to a pre sumption of a well-founde d fea r of persecution on that basis. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b ) ( 1 ) ; 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b ) ( 1 ) . Th eb urd enw o u l dth ens hi f ttotheg o v ernmenttoe s t ab l i s hb y a preponderanc e of theevidenc e that there had been a f undamental chang e in circumstances or that Gashi could relocate. See id. It appea rs that the denials of Gashi’s c laims for withholding of removal and CAT relief 3 were essentially

predic ated on the denial of her asylum claim. As we have now de cided that the asylum claim must be reevaluated under the proper leg al standards, Gashi’s withholding of removal and CAT claims must be re evaluated as well. Although the B IA stated that the record failed to demonstrate Ga shi was more likely than not to be tortured w ith the consent or acquie scenc e of a

g overnment official, this conc lusory statement is likewise undermined by the failureof the I

J , whose opinion the B IA adopted, to c onsider all the evidencesubmitted. 9 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ; c

f . A rbol e da v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 43 4 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 26 (11th C i r. 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( B I A ’ s fa i l ur e t o c ons i de ra l l r e qui s i t e fa c t or s i n m a ki ng re lo ca ti o n d eter m in atio n w as re v er sib le er ro r) . W e th er efo re v ac ate th e B IA ’s 2 order and remand thi s c as e t o the B IA w i th i nstructi on s t o rem and the ca se t o the IJ forf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs noti nc ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. 3 P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D.