United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, I n h umane or Deg rading 1 Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T .S. 85; 8 C .F.R. § 208.18.

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: 09a0758n.06 No. 08-4660 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

A R B E N G JO K

A Z 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 ORDER OF THE BO AR D OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS

B EF OR E: GU Y, RO GE RS, a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Pe tit ion e r A rb e n Gj ok a zaj , a nativ e and c iti zen of Al ba nia , pe tit ion s fo r re vie w of an a dv e rs e order o f t he B oard of

I mmigra tion Appeals af

firming the immigration judge’ s decision deny ing Gj ok a zaj ’s a

pp li cat io ns for

asy lu m, wi th ho ld in g of rem ov al, andrel ief un der t he C on ven ti on

Ag a ins t Torture (“CAT” ). We deny Gjokazaj’s petition for re view. 1 I. Gjokazaj, born in Albania in 1970, e ntere d the United States on Marc h 11, 2000, as a nonimmigra nt visit or for

business with authorization to stay for a period not to exceed A pril 10, 2000. He ove rstay ed his visa and f iled an af firmative a

pplication for a sy lum o n M ar ch 3, 2001. TheNo. 08-4660

Gjokazaj v. Holde r

- 2 - application wa s denied, a nd, on April 1 3 , 2001, Gjokazaj was ser ved with a notice to appea r and pla c e d in re mov a l pr oc e e din g s a s a no n- imm ig ra nt who re ma ine d in

the Un ite d St a te s f

or a tim e longe r than pe rmitted, contrar y to 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 227(a) (1)( B) . Gjokazaj admitted the alleg ations contained in the not ice to appea r and conce ded re movability , but rene wed his application for asylum and also re quested withholding of re moval and prote ction under t h e C AT. Gjokazaj cla imed that he left Albania in Marc h 2000 beca use hi s life wa s in dang er due to his role as a student a ctivist and

su pp or te r o f t he De moc ratic Part

y in t he 19 90 ' s. I n h is a

pp li c a tio ns , h e c ite d s e ve ra l in c ide nts spanning the time period fr om D ece mber 1990 to F ebrua ry 2000, when he was a lleg edly arr ested, be a te n, tor

tur e d, and thr e a te ne d by the Al ba nia n poli c e and me mbe rs of

the Soc ia lis t Part

y be c a us e of his active pa

rticipation in elec tions and rallies supporting the Democ ratic Par ty

. On Au g us t 28 , 2 00 7, fo llo wi nga re mov a l he ari ng a t wh ic h Gj ok a zaj wa s the so le wi tne ss, the immigration judge ( “I J ”) issued a n oral de cision denying a ll fo rm s o f relief and or dering Gjokazaj’s re moval to Al b an i a. The I J rende red a n adver se cr edibility

deter mination based upon internal inconsistenc ies in Gjokazaj’s testimony , discrepa ncies be twee n

h is te s ti mo ny

a n d h is wr it te n asylum application, and omissions in bot h his testimony and the wr itten applications relating to key events a nd matters g oing to the he art of his claim. I n light of the se contra dictions, the I J found that Gj ok a zaj wa s n ot c re dib le and thu s cou ld not su sta in the re qu isi te burd e n of pr oo f t o e sta bli shhis elig ibilit y for a sy lum. The I J further

held that, eve n assuming G jokazaj’s claims wer e cr edible and de monstrated past perse cution, the g overnme nt’s proofs showing im proved c ountry conditions in Albania rebuttedNo. 08-4660

Gjokazaj v. Holde r

- 3 - the pr e sumpt ion

of a we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on . T he I J summ ari z ed a 20 06 State Depa rtment Country Report and a Mar ch 2004 prof ile of asy lum claims, both of which re flec ted the

c ur re nt A lba nia n g ov e rnme nt’ s r e sp e c t f

or th e human r ig hts of

its c iti zen s, a

sh arp de c lin e in a c ts of politic a l o p p r e s s ion and re lated violence , a tolera nce f or those individuals who opposed the f ormer Commu n is t r e g im e , an d th e in c r e a s e d p r o f e s s io n a li s m o f th e A lb an ia n p o li c e a f

te r 1 997. Of particula r sig nificanc e to Gjokaz aj’s asy lum claim was the fac t that the Democr atic Party won the national elec tions in 2005 and the leade r of the D emocr atic Part y i s n o w the prime minister of Albania. The I J noted that Albania r emains a c ountry with a hig h deg ree of org anized crime, blood feuds, a n d co rruption; howeve r, “g overnme nt corruption base d on criminal ac tiviti es does not

su pp or t a fi nd ingthat [Gj ok a zaj ] ha s a we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f r e tur

nin g to A lbani a

be c a us e of his po lit ic a l a c tiv iti e s w iththe De moc ratic Part y , a pa rt y wh ic h is c ur

re ntl y in nat iona l c on tr ol i n Albania.” I n light of the se improved c ountry conditions, the I J held that Gjokazaj fa iled to establish a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution based upon his political beliefs. The I J also deter mined that Gjokazaj was inelig ible fo r withholding of remova l and protec tion under the CAT be cause of the lack of evidenc e supporting these c laims. The I J thus ordere d Gjokazaj’s re moval to Albania. I n an o rd er i s s u ed o n No v em b er 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e BI A ad o p t ed an d af fi rm ed t h e I J ’s “t h o ro u gh and we ll-rea soned dec ision” and dismissed Gjo k az aj ’s appeal. This timely petition for re view followed.No. 08-4660

Gjokazaj v. Holde r

The REAL

I D Act modified the standard g overningcre dibilit y dete rm inations and now 2 pr ov ide s th a t su c h f

ind ing s sh ou ld be “based on the ‘t ota lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s’ and

take int o acc ount ‘all rele vant fa ctors.’” El-Moussa v. Holder , 5 6 9 F. 3 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 6 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g 8 - 4 - II. I n his petition, Gjokaz aj ar g ues that the I J ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility

deter mination is not supported by su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e on

the re c or d w he n v ie we d a s a wh ole and tha

t he ha s me t th e re qu isi te burdens of

proof so a s to establish his eligibility for asy lum, withholding of r emoval, and pr otection under the CAT. We disag ree . We r eview de novo issues of law, Csekinek v. INS, 391 F.3d 819, 822 ( 6th Cir. 2004), and

asses s th e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s o f

th e B I A , in c lu d in g c r e d ib il it y d e te r mi n a ti o n s , u s in g th e s u

b s ta n tial evidenc e standa

rd, which r equire s that we uphold the B I A’s finding s as long as they are supported by rea sonable, subst antial, and probative evidence on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole. Mo sta fa v. As hc ro ft , 395 F.3d 622, 624 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Under this hig hly defe rential standa

rd, “f indings of f

act

are ‘conc lusive unless any rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to c onclude to the c ontrary .’” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B )). To the extent the B I A adopted the I J ’s re asoning , we review dire ctly the I J ’s dec ision. Parlak v. Holde r , 578 F.3d 457, 462 (6th Cir. 2009). Be cause Gjokazaj’s asylum application prec eded the enac tment of the REAL I D Act of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, Div. B , 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005), the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination “‘must be supported by

specific rea sons [ and] . . . must be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applicant’ s claim.’” Liti v. Gonzales , 4 1 1 F. 3 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 7 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Sy lla v . I NS , 388 2No. 08-4660

Gjokazaj v. Holde r

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (iii)). - 5 - F.3d 924, 926 ( 6th Cir. 2004)). As a g ener al rule, discr epanc ies have no bear ing on a n applicant’ s

cre dibilit y

unless they

serve to enhanc e the a

pplicant’s cla im of perse cution. Sylla, 388 F.3d at 926. Speculation and c onjecture provide inade quate bases for an adverse cre dibilit y deter mination, which must inst ead be supported by substantial evidence

. Liti , 411 F.3d at 637. Th e Attor ne y Ge ne ra l ma

y g ra nt a sylum to a “ re fu g e e ” – “ on e wh o is un a ble or unwi lli ngto return to . . . [his or her home c ountry ] because of perse cution or a we ll-founded f ear of per secution

on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” Selami v. Gonzale s , 423 F.3d 62 1 , 6 2 5 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42)( A)). T he applic ant bears the burde n of provingelig ibilit y for a sy lum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) . “To prove one’s r efug ee status, one must prese nt specific fac ts demonstrating suffe ring of past per secution or a we l l -f ounded fe ar of

future pe rsec ution moti vated by one of the se five statutorily protec ted g rounds.” Allabani v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 6 7 4 (6th Cir. 2005). An applicant who e stablis h es past persecution is entitled to a pre sumption of a well-founde d fea r of future pe rsec ution, 8 C.F.R. § 12 0 8

. 1 3 (b )( 1), which ma y be re butted by

the g overnme nt upon a

s h o wing of cha

ng ed countr

y conditions that undermine any such we ll-founded f

ear . P a scual v. Mukase y , 514 F.3d 483, 485 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1)(i)( A)). A well-f ounded fe ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

mus t be no t on ly

su bje c tiv e ly g e nu ine , but ob je c tiv e ly re a so na ble a s w e ll. Akhtar v. Gonzale

s , 406 F.3d 399, 404 ( 6th Cir. 2005).No. 08-4660

Gjokazaj v. Holde r

- 6 - I n the pre sent ca se, the I J car efully chronic led numerous discr epanc ies in the evidence. The I J noted inconsistencies pe rtaining to the dates of Gjokazaj’s initial ar rest and his involvement in a major political protest, and the individuals who were with hi m d uring alleg ed incidents of perse cution. The re cord a lso confirms that Gjokazaj inexpli cably ch an ged h is testimony when pr omp te d b y

c ouns e l. G

jok a zaj omi tte d k e y

inf or matio n f ro m hi s te sti mony

that w a s c on ta ine d in his application, including his alleg ation that he and his cousin wer e accosted by three arme d men, who pointed pistols in t heir fa ces, and the fact that he had been inter viewed on A lbanian television and ra dio. I n sum, the I J pointed to specific a nd cog ent re asons for f

inding that Gjokazaj was not

c re dib le . Co nv e rs e ly , G

jok a zaj ha s p ro vid e d n o ba sis fo r d ist ur bin g the I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty d e t e r m i n a t i o n . H av i n g t h o r o u g h l y r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d , w e t h e r e f

o r e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e IJ an d B IA proper ly denied his application for asylum. Alternatively , even if

Gjokazaj i s deeme d to be cr edible, the I J proper ly conclude d that evidenc e of improved country conditions ne g ated his c laim of a well-founde d fea r of fu t ure perse cution should he return to Albania. As the I J noted, the De mocratic Party , with which Gjokazaj is affil iate d, is n ow

the g ov e rn ingpo lit ic a l pa rt y in A lba nia . M or e ov e r, State De pa rtme nt r e po rt s “ar e g ener ally

the best sourc e of infor

mation on conditions in foreig n nations.” Mu lla i v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F.3d 635, 639 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). On the ba sis of these re ports, we have

“ re pe a te dly c on c lud e d that the c on dit ion s in Al ba nia have imp ro ve d to su c h an e xten t th a t th e re is no objective ba sis for a we ll-founded f ear of future pe rsec ution based on political or re ligious beliefs.” Ceraj v. Muk

asey , 5 1 1 F. 3 d 5 8 3 , 5 9 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Ra ma j v

. Gonzales , 466 F.3dNo. 08-4660

Gjokazaj v. Holde r

- 7 - 52 0, 53 0- 31 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; Macotaj v. G onzales , 424 F.3d 464, 465 ( 6th Cir. 2005); and Mullai v. As hc ro ft , 385 F.3d 635, 639 (6th Cir. 2004) ). See also Ndrecaj v. Mukasey , 522 F.3d 667, 676- 77 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; Shkulaku-Purballori v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 499, 503 (6th Cir. 2007); and Liti , 411 F.3d at 639-40. The I J appropr iately rea ched the same c onclusion in this case. “B eca use an a lien must meet a hig her bur den in establishin g a ri gh t to withholding of

re mov a l th an in de mon str a tin g a sylum e lig ibi lity , a

n a lie n w ho fa ils to q

ua lif y fo r a sylum

ne c e ssa ri ly does not qualify

for withholding of re moval.” Singh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005). Gjokazaj’s application for withholding of remova l is accor dingly

forecl o s ed, as is his reque st for protec tion under the CAT. See H amida v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 734, 741- 42 (6th Cir. 2007).

III

. For the fore g oing r easons, we deny Gjokazaj’s petition for re view.