T h e Ho n o ra b le Ja m e s S

. G win , Un it e d S t a t e s Di s t ri c tJu d ge fo r t h e No rt h e rn Di s trict * of Ohio , s it ti ng by

des ig nati on. NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION

Fi le Name: 06a 0784n.0 6 Fi led : Oct ober

23, 2006 No. 05- 3505 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IX TH C IR CU IT
GJE RG J K

ALAJ; ROZ E KA LAJ; AU RE LA KAL AJ; EL VIS KA LAJ; JOLANDA KAL AJ, Pet itione rs,
v. ALB ERT O R. GONZALE S, Attorney Gene ral, Res pondent

. / On P eti tio n for Rev iew of an Order of the Boa rd of Immig ra ti on Appeal s.

BEF OR E: RY

AN and CO OK, Ci rc uitJu dg es; GW IN , D is tr ic t J udg e. * RY AN, Circuit Judge. T he petition ers, Gjergj Kalaj, Roz e Kalaj, Aurela Ka laj, El v is Kal aj, and Jol anda Kalaj (Kal aj, et al. ), appeal a n order of the B oard of Immig ra ti on Appeal s ( BIA) adopt ing and aff ir ming an Immig ra ti on Judg e’s (I J) deni al of thei r cl aim for asy lum, w it hhol din g of re mov al, and prote ct io n under the Con v enti on Ag ain st Tortu re . Beca use w e find subs tanti al ev ide nce suppo rt s t he IJ ’s dec is ion , w e DENY Kalaj, et al.’s peti ti on for re v iew

. I. Kal aj, e t a l. a re ci ti z ens of Alban ia. Gjergj and R oz e are hus band an d w ife; t he other peti ti oners a re thei r chi ld re n . T hey ente re d the U nit ed St ates as a g ro up, g ain ing ent r y w i th ou t i ns pe c ti on at Brow ns v i l l e, Tex as , on or ab ou t J un e 12 , 20 01

. Ka l aj , et al.(N o. 05 -3 505) -2
-

w er e apprehended dur ing thei r il leg al entr y , and the n e xt d a y t he Immi g ra ti on and Natura liz ation Service ( INS) serv ed th em w ith no tices to ap pea r at dep ortat ion he arings. Kal aj, et al. fil ed a peti ti on for asy lum, a c lai m for w it hhol din g of re mov al, and a c lai m for protec ti on under the C onv enti on Ag ain st Tortu re . Ev ide nce w as submi tted in suppo rtof thes e c lai ms. Gjergj testif ied th at he w as a m em ber an d regional “secreta ry ” of the Dem ocratic Par ty i n Al bani a and that as a resul t he and his f amil y w ere pers ecut ed. The first inc ide nt of pers ecut ion oc cur re d on the 1 3th or 14th of September 1998, w hen he ra is ed a carav an for th e funera l of a p rominentmember of the D emocrati c P arty w ho had been assassin ate d. Gjergj testif ied th at two “ shiks” or secret police th re a t e n e d tha t he would “p ay w it h [hi s] ow n li fe” if he cont inu ed in the funeral mar ch and t hat h e w as “g ra bbed .

. . by th e a rm and push ed. ” T he f une ral march so on d escen ded into a riot du ring w hich shops w er e l ooted. A sec ond inc ide nt occu rred on Ma rc h 20, 1999. Gjergj cl aims thaton thi s d ate h e g av e a ten minut e speec h to a crow d of 12 0 peopl e conc er nin g the upcomi ng ele cti ons in 2000. After w ards, he w as detai ned by the po lice and a g ro up of “ g ang members ” w ho forc ed hi m to t he g ro und and beatand ki ck ed hi m. Gj ergj tes ti fied th at a thi rd i nci dent occ ur re d on June 13, 1999. He cl aims he w as bea ten up on this occasio n w hen h e and a group o f othe r Chri stians were stopp ed o n the ir
w ay to church ser

v ic es and he w as inj ured by “ ki ck s, ru bber

st ic ks , bea ti ng , [ and] ki ck ing .” Last ly , Gjergj tes ti fied th at on Oc tober 1, 2000, he w as ki ck ed and str uck w it h the buttof a rifle during a “police” raid on a polling statio n. Gjergj w as take n to a police station , w here a doc tor g av e hi m tw o s hots

. He als o c lai ms t o hav e been beat e n t wice a t th e s tati on. Af ter he was relea sed, Gjergj w enthom e an d foun d tha t his w ife ha d be en “rape d” w hile(N o. 05 -3 505) -3
-

he w as g one. H e al so tes ti fied th a t while h e w as g one hi s s on w as threatened w it h kidna ping if Gjergj continu ed h is political activi ties. He claime d tha t his w ife and son w ould
v erif y these ev ent s, but , in the e nd, n eithe r of them g ave any testim ony. The petitio ners pr esent ed sev eral unsw or n aff ida v it s from members of t he Democ ra ti c Par ty in Alb a n ia, a medi cal aff ida v itfrom a doct or , and a ne w spape r arti cl e w it h the foll ow ing headl ine : “ The dem ocrat Gjergj Kalaj, forced to leave his count ry !” After re viewin g t h e ev ide nce, the IJ found that Gj ergj’ s t est imony and the o ther evidence p resen ted w as no t credible. As a result, he den ied the p etition for asyl um , claim for w it hhol din g of remov al, and cl aim for protec ti on unde r the C onv enti on Ag ain st Tortu re . The IJ made s ev eral findi n gs o f f a ct. F irst, he found t hat n eit her of the 1 999 inc ide nts Gj ergj menti oned du ri ng hi s tes ti mony w ere inc lud ed in his appl ic ati on for asy lum and t hat h e of

fered no pl ausi ble reason for t hei r omis si on ev en after bei ng q uest ion ed. In addi ti on, t he IJ note d tha t tw o s ig natures on s eparate d ocument s p ur por ted t o be that of “F re d St erte” di d notappear to match. A medic al aff ida v itGj ergj submi tted had the dat e chang ed from O cto ber

15, 2000, to Oct ober 1, 2000, and Gj ergj coul d not acc ount for w ho did thi s o r w hen i t w as done. H e c oul d notex pla in w hat h a p p ened t o the env elo pes the document s from Al bani a w ere mai led i n or ev en w hat c olo r they

w ere. The IJ furth er deter mined that other

doc umentar

y ev ide nce confli cte d w it h Gj ergj’ s t est imony

. For instan ce, Gjergj cl aim ed th at he paid m one y to the associat ion of

the forme r politically perse cute d an d ob taine d a receip t before he cam e to the Un ited Sta tes, butt he rece ipt is dated Apr il 4, 2002— some mont hs after Gj ergj ar ri v ed i n the U nit ed St ates o n J u n e 12, 2001. Las tl y , t he IJ note d tha t Gjergj’ s w ife and s o n d id n o t cor ro borate a ny of the p e rs e c u t io n o r t h re a t s t h e y su f fe re d in d ivi d u a ll y e ve n t h o u gh t h e y we re a va il a b le t o t e s t ify,(N o. 05 -3 505) -4
-

and Gjergj himse lf

disclaime d an y

f irsthan d kno w ledge of the events. In addition to the se findi ng s reg ardin g the ev ide nce before him, the IJ als o re li ed on th e 2001 U. S. D epar tment of State Profi le o f

A sylum Cl aims and Cou ntr y C ondi ti ons for Al bani a and the 2 001 and 2002 U .S. Dep artment of S tate Cou ntr y Rep orts on H uman R ig hts Pract ic es, w hic h s tated that cr ime is st il l an i ss ue i n Al bani a, bu t t hat t here are no indi cat ion s t hat p ersec uti on on protec ted g ro unds is co nti nui ng . Kalaj, et al. ap pea led th e de cision of the IJ to the BIA, bu t the BIA he ld tha t the IJ’s det ermin ation w as correct an d tha t his f indings of fact w ere not“clearly

erroneo us.” Kalaj, et al . now

appeal thatdec is ion to thi s c our t. II. “B ecaus e t h e B I A a d o p t e d t h e I J ’ s r e a s o n i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o [ K a l aj , e t a l

. ’ s ]

. . . cl aims for a sy lum and w it hhol din g of re mov al, w e rev iew

. . . the IJ’ s d eci si on di re ctly .” Singh v . Ashcroft, 39 8 F. 3 d 3 96, 401 (6th Cir. 2005 ). The IJ’s leg al conclu sions are
rev iew ed d e no v o, an d the factu al f indings are revi ewed for substa ntial evidence . Ta pucu
v . G o n z ale s, 399 F .3d 7 36, 7 38 ( 6th C ir . 200 5)

. W e mustuphol d the IJ ’s dete rmi nati on that an al ien i s n ot el ig ibl e for asy lu m w hen t hat d eci si on i s “ suppo rt ed by reason abl e, subst ant ial, and proba tiv e evidence on the record consid ered as a w hole .” INS v . EliasZ a c a r i a s , 5 0 2 U

. S

. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. W e mayrev erse the I J o nly

i f “a reason abl e factfinde r w oul d hav e to conc lud e that the req uis it e fear of persec uti on ex is ted.” I d. The Att or ney

Gene ra l has dis creti on unde r the I mmig ra ti o n a n d N ati onal ity Ac t ( IN A) to g ra nt as y lum to a “refugee. ” 8 U .S.C . § 1158( b) (1 )( A)

. The IN A define s a “ re fugee” as an al ien w ho i s “ unabl e o r unw il li ng ” to retur n to his co untr y of or ig in “b ecaus e of(N o. 05 -3 505) -5
-

p e rs e c u t io n o r a we ll -fo u n d e d fe a r o f p e rs e c u t io n o n a c c o u n to f ra c e , re li gi o n , n a t io n a li t y, me mb ership in a pa rticular social group , or political opin ion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). An app li cantfor a sy lum must car ry the b urden of es tabl is hin g thatthe “w ell -founded fear
o f p e rs e c u t io n ” i s “b o t h su bje c t ive ly g e n u in e a n d o bje c t ive ly r e a s o n a b le

. ” A k h t a r v. Gonz ale s, 406 F .3d 3 99, 4 04 ( 6th C ir . 200 5) ( int er n a l quo ta ti on mar ks and ci tati on omit ted)

. To q ual ify

for w it hhol din g of re mov al under 8 U .S.C

. § 1231( b) (3 )( A) , t he appl ic ant “mus t es tabl is h a c lea r probabi li ty of perse cut ion ” by

show ing that it is m ore lik ely than not t h a th e w i l l b e p e rs e c u t e d

. I N S v . S t e v i c , 4 6 7 U

. S

. 4 0 7 , 4 1 3 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. S i mi l a r l y , t o q u a l i fy for w it hhol din g under

the Con v enti on Ag ain st Tortu re , t he ap p licant mus t “ est abl is h tha t iti s more l ik ely

than not t h a t h e o r she w oul d be tor tured i f remov ed to the propose d count ryo f

r e m o val .” 8 C. F. R. § 20 8.16( c) (2 ). The t orture, ho w ev er , nee d notbe o n accou nt of

a prote cted groun d. Ca stellan o-Chaco n v . INS, 341 F.3 d 533 , 551 -52 (6th Cir

. 2003)

. Kal aj, et al. di v ide thei r br ief i nto tw o i ss ues. F irst, they arg ue that the IJ and the B IA
e rre d i n findi ng thatthey di d notes tabl is h a “ w ell -founded fear of persec uti on.” The argume nts th ey prese nt, h owev er, do n ot resolve the multip le discrepa ncies up on which the IJ based his credulity f indings and his fin al conclu sion. F or examp le, Kalaj, et al. claim that the 2 002 U .S. Dep artment of State Co u n try R epor t on Human Ri g hts Pract ic es act ual ly su ppor ts thei r cl aim. But the repor ts, w hil e ac know led g ing that there are abus es and a hig h rate o f cr ime in Al bani a, c lea rl y st ate t hat t here are no confir med repor ts of dis appearances , detenti ons, or i mpri sonmentbas ed on pol it ic al moti v ati ons. The peti ti oners a ls o arg ue th at Gj ergj’ s tes ti mony w as not “ v ag ue” i n respect t o the persec uti on(N o. 05 -3 505) -6
-

suffered by

hi s w ife and son. The I J’ s findi ng , how ev er , app ear s a m ply su ppor ted b y Gj ergj’ s ow n statementthathe d id not p ersonal ly “ know ” w hat h appened, but that his “ son might tell.” The peti ti oners n ext arg ue th at t he IJ eng ag ed i n “ sheer sp ecul ation” as to the
v alidity of

docu me nts s u b m itted beca use th e f indings w ere no t base d on any ev iden ce introd u c e d by the gov ernm entor through expert testim ony. Neither argumen t is
conv inc ing

. An I J h as the a uthor ity , i nde e d , th e duty , t o ev alu ate e v ide nce submi tted to him or her

and re ject that ev ide nce if it is found not credi ble , espec ial ly w hen a peti ti oner fails to suf

f iciently explain obvio u s d o c um enttam pering or man ifest inco nsisten cies. Sel ami v . G onz ale s, 423 F .3d 6 21, 6 25 ( 6th C ir . 200 5)

. The IJ q uest ion ed Gj ergj, but he off ered no e xpla n ati on to ac countfor c hang es made to the d ocument s o r other inc onsi ste nci es on th e face of the doc uments

. The la st arg ument t he pet it ion ers mak e i n s uppor t of thei r firs t i ss ue i s t hat t he IJ
w as dereli ct for not“ aid [i ng ] i n the dev elo pment of the record of an as y lum cl aim. ” Ev en
w ere this cou rt to hold w ith the Nint h Circuit, Ja cinto v. INS, 208 F.3 d 72 5 (9th Cir. 200 0), tha t an IJ in an adversarial hearing must“develop the record” according to a ru le develope d for non -adversarial social security hea rings, that rule w ould not see m to app ly here since the app licant did not ap pea r “ w ithou t coun sel.” Id. at 7 3 4

. F u rther, it is apparent t hat t his ca se differs from Ja ci nto s inc e Gj ergj not o n ly t e stified but w as q uest ion ed by

the IJ, and, “ most impor tant, ” he had the o ppor

tuni ty to make a “ sta tement” in suppo rtof his c la im had he w is hed. Id. I n v iew of thes e c onsi derati ons and our(N o. 05 -3 505) -7
-

deferent ial st andard of re v iew , it is apparentthat this co urt may not ov ertur n the IJ ’s findi ng tha t the re w as no “w ell-foun ded fear of persecu tion. ” As a s econd i ss ue, K ala j, et al. dev ote a smal l sec ti on of thei r br ief to arg uin g that the IJ and th e BIA e rred in dismissing their w ithho lding of remo v al claim an d the ir cl aim under the Con v enti on Ag ain st Tortu re because the ev ide nce show s “i t is more lik ely than not t hat [ they] w il l be persec uted and t ortured upon retur n to Al bani a.” But thi s c our t has held t ha t w he r e th e r ec ord do es no t c om pe l th e fi nd i ng th at th e pe ti ti on ers ha v e a “w ellfounded fear o f pers ecut ion ,” i t i s a pparent t hat i t al so cannotcompel the more s tr ing ent “c lea r probabi li ty ” findi ng req uired for a w ith h o ldi ng of re mov al cl aim under 8 U .S.C . § 1231( b) (3 )( A)

. S e e P il ic a v . As hcroft, 388 F. 3d 941, 951 (6 th C ir . 200 4)

. W e are l eft, therefore, w it h the concl usi on that subst anti al ev ide nce suppo rt s the IJ’ s d eci si on to deny Kal aj, et al. protec ti on unde r the C onv enti on Ag ain st Tortu re bec ause the reco rd f a ils to esta blish tha t it is “more likely than not” tha t Kalaj, et al. w ill be to rtured if forced to return to A lba nia

. 8 C .F .R . § 208.16( c) (2 ). III . For the abov e reason s, w e DENY Kalaj et al.’s petition for rev iew of the BI A’s order.