The Honor able Alge non L . Marbley , United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. File Na me: 06a0726n.06 Filed: Oc tober 5, 2006 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT GJ EL OSH P. VUSHAJ , FI L E VUSHAJ, and M E N D R I T V U S H A J, Pe tit ion e rs , v. AL BERTO R. GO NZ AL ES , Attorney Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Re sp on de nt. ON APPEALFROM T H E B O A RD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

/ Be fore : MARTI

N and RYAN , Circuit J udg es; and MARB L EY, District Judge. * B OY CE F . M AR TI

N, JR., Ci rc uit

Judg e . G

je los h V us ha

j, h is w if e Fil e, and so n M e nd

ri t
are all c it iz e n s an d

n a ti v e s o f

A lb an ia

. T h e y

p e ti ti o nth is Co u rt f

o r r e v ie w o f

th e B o a r d

of I mmigration Appeals’s a ffirma nce of the immigration court’s decision denying their application for

a sylum , w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l, a

nd re lie f pu rsuan t to the Un ite d N a tio ns ’s Con ve nti on Ag a ins t Torture . Additionally , the Vushajs appea l the Boa rd’s decision that their a

pplications were frivolous and deny ing the ir motion to reopen the he aring . Ba sed on the discussion below, we deny the petition for r eview a s to the Vushajs’ re movability and their motion to reope n.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 2

Mr . V us ha

j’ s p a ssp or

t w a s a c tua lly

sta mpe d M arc h 1 , 199 7, ho we ve r he c la ims that th is d a te 1 is i nc or re c t and the c or re c t da te of e ntr y wa s Mar c h 10, 19 97
. I n sup po rt , Vus ha j poin ts out

that hi s passport shows that, like his wife, he enter ed Bulg aria on Marc h 9, 1997 and lef

t on March 10, 1997. I. Gjelosh and F ile Vushaj previously enter ed the United S tates on January 31, 1994, visiti ng relatives for o n e m o n t h. Mr. Vushaj re turned to the United States on January 13, 1997, visiti ng relatives for twe nty -five da y s. Most rece ntly , Mr. and Mrs. Vushaj enter ed the United States as nonimmigra nt visit ors for ple asure on Marc h 10, 1997. They wer e authorized by the I mmigration and 1 Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) to st ay

in the United States until S eptember 9, 1997. Mendrit enter ed the United States without inspection on Marc h 13, 1997. On May 27 , 1 99 7, Vu sh a

j f ile d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum wi th t he I NS o n b e ha lf

of him se lf and his family . Subsequently , the Vushajs applied f or withholdin g o f removal under the United Nations C o n v en tion Aga inst Torture. On January 20, 1998, the I

NS issued a Notice to Appe ar,
c ha rg ingtha t Mr . a nd Mr s. Vu sh a

j w e re su bje c t to re mov a l f

ro m th e Un ite d State s havin g sta y e d in the United States long er tha n permitted in violation of sec tion 237(a)( 1)(B ) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (“ I NA”) . The I

NS a lso issued a Notice to Appe ar, c harg ing that Mendrit was subjec t to r emoval as a

n alien pre sent in the United States without being permitted or pa roled in violation of se c tio n 2 12 (a )( 6) (A )( i) of the I NA
. Th e Vu sh a

js have c on c e de d tha t the y are su bje c t to re mov a l. On F e br ua ry 4, 20 04, th e immi g ra

tio n c ourt c on du c te d a

me ri ts h e ari ngon

the Vu sh a

js’ applications. M r. Vu shaj was the f irst and primary

witness for the f

amily ’s application and he testified to the following fac ts, supplemented by the statement he submitt ed to the immigration court with his family ’s application.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 3 On

F e br ua ry 26 , 198 4, Vu sh a

j and his fa

mil y we re fo rc e fu lly dis pla c e d fr om the ir ho me in Shkodra, Albania to the Bushat Camp beca use of their

opposition t o communism. During the ir five y ear s in isolation, Vushaj and his family wer e torture d by

communists. I n 1990, Vu s h aj ’s t wo brothers, Ma

rt i nan d Gj et o Vu s h aj , es cap edfr o m i n t ern m en tan d ev en tu al l y

re ce i v ed political asy

lum fr om t he Un ite d Stat e s. Af

te r the fa ll o f c omm

un ism , V us ha

j jo ine d th e e me rg ingde moc ratic pa rt y in hopes of esta

blishing a de mocra cy

in Albania. In 1992, the Albanian pa rliam en t enac ted laws allowing political prisoners under the communist reg ime to obtain positi ons in the police force. On November

17, 1992, Vushaj wa s appointed as a n office r of the Shkoder Police De partment. On Ma y 5, 19 94 , V us ha

j arr e ste d s oc ia lis t le a de rs , in c lud ingB ilb il M e ma and F a tos Na no fo r atte mpt ingto lead illeg al demonstrations. Mema w as later appointed dire ctor of the Al b an i an police a nd Nano beca me the prime minister of A lbania. Vushaj testified that on August 15, 1994, he was arr ested by Ba skim Gazidede, leade r of the
secr et police, be cause he refused to place wea pons in the building that wa s the site of a hung er strike

. Vu sh a j c la ims that he wa s se ve re ly tor tur e d wh ile in pr iso n. Ac c or din g to Vus ha j, h e re ma ine d in prison for ten da

y s and wa s relea sed after P resident Sali Ba risha acknowledg ed that Vushaj’s actions
we re le g a l. A ft e r h is r e le a se , V us ha j c la ims that t he secr et polic e ma de it d if fi c ult fo r h im t o
c omp le te his du tie s a s a po lic e of

fi c e r. On

se ve ra l oc c a sio ns the se c re t poli c e wo uld re le a se prisoners whom Vusha

j arre sted. After

their re lease , the cr iminals sought to locate a nd kill Vushaj and his family

. I n e a rl y 19 97 , th e c omm

un ist s r e g a ine d p ower

in A lba nia and or de re d a ll p ro -d e moc ratic police off icer s killed. Many

of Vushaj’s friends we re killed by the communists. He testified thatNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 4 he re c e ive d a

no te un de r h is d oo r t

hr e a te nin g him

and the l ive s o f h is f

a mil y . T he c omm

un ist s burned down the police depar tment and military

division. Vushaj testified that one of the me n who he had pr eviously

arr ested, Tolin Kola, tried to kidnap Mendrit twice . Vushaj additionally claimed that Nano issued a

n order out f or his a rre st. Howeve r, Mema, the direc tor of the police a nd who was former ly imprisoned by

Vushaj as be ing a

sociali s t l ea d er , stated that the orde r wa s fake and that the re wa s n e ve r o rd e r i ssu e d f or Vu sh a j’ s arr e st. Vu sh a

j c la ime d th a t th e do c ume nt i s a uth e nti c beca use it was consistent with eve nts that occurr ed in Albania. A dditionally , Vushaj alleg ed that two
me n w e re se nt b y

Na no to t he Un ite d St a te s to kil l hi m. Mr s. F ile Vu sh a

j te sti fi e d tha t she so ug ht a sylum in t he Un ite d St a te s b e c a

us e sh e wa s a fr a id for he r life due to her husband’ s position as a pol i ce o ff i ce r i n Albania. She c onfirmed that he r husband had in fact been a rre sted for te n day s in 1994. W hen aske d to describe her husba nd’s phy sical condition when rel ea s ed from jail, she de scribed him as “ exhausted”, “upse t” and “ sad”. She also claims to have been prese nt dur ing the two attempted kidnapping s of Mendrit. She stated that “they tried t o kidnap him at home and two we eks later they tried to kidnap him outside when they tried to put him in t he ca

r.” A lthough she could no longe r re member e x actly when the a lleg ed kidnapping s took place, she said they occur red in F ebrua

ry of 1997. Mendrit al s o t es t i fi ed that ther e had be en two attempts to kidnap him. The first attempt involved a man try

ing to kick down his door

. Mendrit called the police and they appre hended the man. The se cond attempt occ urre d two to three w eeks later. Mendr it c laims that severa l men chase d him wi th a c ar un til he ra

n in to h is c ou sin ’s sto re . M e nd ri t c ou ld n ot e xpla in w hy

he tho ug ht t

he se incidents wer e attempted kidna ppings a nd not attempted robbe ries or something else.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 5 Me nd

ri t c la ims that hi s n a me is a c tua lly “ Ma dr id” e ve n th ou g h a ll o ffici al doc ume nts including his drive r’s lice nse spell his name a s “M en d ri t
. ” He claims that his name was mis un de rs too d w he n h e c a me to t he Un ite d St a te s. Th e imm ig ratio n c ourt di sm is sed thi s explanation because sever al documents such a s the application for asylum, which wer e filed by Mr. Vu sh a j, c on tin ue d to us e “ Me nd

ri t. ” Th e imm ig ratio n c ourt a sk e d M e nd

ri t, “ [a]r e y ou

te lli ngme that y our fathe r can’ t te ll the truth about the most minor thing,” to w hich M en d ri t an s we red aff irmatively

. II. On F e br ua ry 18 , 2 00 4, the imm ig ra

tio n c ourt de nie d th e Vu sh a

js’ a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , withholding of r emoval, and r elief unde r the Convention Ag ainst Torture. T he immigration court cited seve ral inconsistenc ies betwe en testimony g iven, evidenc e submitted and the a ctual pre sent situation in Albania. Fir s t , Vu shaj could not provide a rea son as to why

he wa s sever ely

beate n during his ten-day

detainment in 1994. Fur ther, whe n Mrs. Vushaj test i fi ed about the phy sical
c on dit ion of he r hu sb and aft e r t

he te n d ay s in

pr iso n, sh e , d e sp ite e ve ry op po rt un ity , f a ile d to
me nti on any ph y sic a l in

jur ie s v isi ble on

him . O n th e ir applic a tio n f or a sylum , V us ha

j sp e lle d h is son’s name a s “Mendr it”, y et his son t es t i fi ed t hat his name is in fac t spelled “Madr id.” Additionally , Vu shaj wrote Ma rch 1, 1997 a s the date of his arriva l in the United States on the

a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , w hic h is c on sis te nt w iththe sta mp on his pa ssp or

t. Ye t, bot

h M r. and Mr s. Vushaj testified that date was inc orre ct and the a ctual date was Mar ch 10, 1997. Vu sh a j pr e se nte d an arr e st or de r a lle g e dly iss ue d by Na no (t he so c ia lis t le a de r wh o b e c a me the pr ime min ist e r o f A lba nia ), that w a s late r v e ri fi e d to be fr a ud ule nt b y the Al ba nia n g ov e rnme nt.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 6 The i m m i gration cour

t thought it suspicious that Vushaj’s father is who ale rted Vusha j as to the prese nce of the order, y et when the father testi fied he never was asked one que stion pertaining to the
or de r. Vu sh a

j kn e w that th e or de r w a s v e ri fi e d f a lse a s e arl y

a s Apr il o f 2 00 0 a

nd fa ile d to ob ta in further evidenc e supporting the ac cura cy of t he order by the t ime testimony was take n in Febr

uary of 2004. Additionally , Vushaj wa s asked if he had been convicted of a cr ime since his stay in the United S t at es t o whi ch he sa id that he had not. Ye t, the g overnme nt produce d evidenc e de mon str a tin g tha

t V us ha j pl e d guil ty

to “ re sis tin g and

ob structi ng a

po lic e of fi c e r a nd do me sti c violence a

nd battery on his wife.” T he immigr ation court found that the testimony g iven re g arding the alleg ed kidnappingattempts was spec ulative eve n if all testimony is believed. Finally , the i mmigration court found the Vushajs’ descr iption of Albania to be inconsistent wi th the e vid e nc e su

bmi tte d by the g ov e rnme nt. Th e imm ig ra tio n c ourt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t w hil e there had bee n an “implosion of ana rchy” in 1997, prese nt da

y Albania is much more balanc ed; that major shifts in the p o l i t ical structur e of the Albanian g overnme nt has made the country stable. Fur ther, Vusha

j did not present enoug h evidenc e demonstrating that what he fe ar ed was in fact political persec ution rather tha n “par t of the vicissitudes of beinga police of fice r.” The immigr ation court fe lt that because of all of the “re d flag s”in Vushaj’s story and appa rent
ease to which he would c hang e his story , Vushaj wa s not credible a nd there fore the immigration court de nied the applications for asylum and withholding of remova l. Furthe r, the immigr ation court found the a

pplication for a sy lum to be frivolous pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 120 8
. 2 0 b ec au se of two fra udulent documents pre s en ted by Vushaj. The f

irst was the a lleg ed ar

rest orde r. The othe r wa s Me nd ri t’ s b ir th c e rt if ic a te , w hic h h a d th e name a s “ Me nd ri t.” B e c ause M e nd

ri t te sti fi e d th a t hi sNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 7
name wa s actua lly

sp el l ed “Madr id,” the immigr ation court found the birth cer tificate to be fra ud u l en t. I ndeed, Me ndrit testified that his father was not alwa

y s truthful. I n conclusion, the immigration court order ed the Vusha js’ remova l from the United States to Albania

. The Vusha

js filed a timely

appea l with the Boa

rd o f I m m i gra tion Appeals (“ Boa rd”) . On J anuar y 14, 2005, the B oard a dopted and a ffirme d the immigration court’s dec ision, including the deter mination that Vushaj was not cre dible and that the application for asy lum was frivolous. On F e br ua ry 8, the Vu sh a

js p e tit ion e d th is C ourt

to r e vie w the B oa

rd de c isi on (N o. 05 -3 15 6)

. On

Ap ri l 7, the Vushajs filed a motion to reope n their case with the Boa rd bec ause of

“new ly discovere d and p r e v io u s ly

u n a v a il a b le e v id e n c e ma

te r ia l t o the I mmigration Court’s adverse cre dibilit y and fr ivolous fi nd ing s. ” Th e ne w e vid e nc e c on sis te d p ri mari ly of state me nts fr om Ma

rk Luk e Ma

ja l and Ag os tin Sterkaj, both Albanian police inspectors in 1997, conf irming that there w as an a

rre st order f

or Vushaj issued on Aug ust 15, 1997. On J une 21, 2005, the B oard de nied the motion to reopen be cause the newly offe red e vidence could have been of fer ed ea rlier. F urther, a ccor ding to the B oard, the new
e vid e nc e did

no t r e bu t th e oth e r dis c re pa nc ie s in the Vu sh a

js’ c la ims

. On

July 14 , 2 00 5, the Vu sh a

js petitioned this Court t o revie w the B oard’ s decision deny ing the motion to reopen (No. 05- 3906). This Court consolidated both petitions for revie w. III
. A. The V ushajs’ Applications for Asylum and Related Relief Th is C ourt ’s re vie w of adm inistr a tiv e a sylum and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l e lig ibi lity deter minations is l imited to a defe rential standard. I n revie wing decisions of the B oard de ny ing a n application for

asylum, the determinat i o n is upheld if supported by rea sonable, substantial, andNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 8 probative e vidence on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole. Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 388 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i n g INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 5 02 U. S. 4 78 , 4 81 (1 99 2) ). We w ill re ve rs e on ly if the e vid e nce pres ented

by the Vu sh a

js w a s su c h th a t a

re a so na ble fa c tf ind e r w ou ld n ot f

a il i n concluding that the requisite fea r of perse cution exis ted. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84 (c iting NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. , 306 U.S. 292, 300 (1939)). Th e Attor ne y Ge ne ra l may g ra

nt a sylum to any pe rs on wh o qu a lif ie s a s a “ re fu g e e .” 8 U .S. C. § 1158(b). A r efug ee is a person unable or unwilling to return to his country “bec ause of

perse cution
or a w ell-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution on ac co u n t o f rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42)( A). To prove one ’s re fug ee status, one must present specific facts demonstrating suffering of past perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of future persec ution motivated by one of these five statutorily protec ted g rounds. Se e El ias

Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 481. The a pplicant’s testimony , if cre dible, “may be suff icient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) . To prove a well-founde d fea

r of futur e pe rs e c uti on , a

n a pp lic ant m

us t a c tua lly

fe ar t hat th e y wi ll b e pe rs e c ute d u

po n r e tur n to the ir country , and they

must present evide nce e stablishing an “ objective situation” under whic h his fear can be deeme d rea sonable. INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 440-41 (1987). I n this case, the Boa

rd and the i mmigration court were in ag ree ment that the fatal flaw in the Vu sh a js’ a pp lic a tions wa s th e c re dib ili ty of Mr . V us ha

j’ s te sti mony . T he re fo re , it is that a dv e rs e
c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n we re vie w. “ [C]re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns are c on sid e re d f ind ing s o f f

a c t, and ar e re viewed unde r the substantial evide nce sta ndard.” Sy lla v . I

NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925 (6th Cir. 2004). B ased on that standard, this C o u rt m u st treat finding s of fa ct as “ conclusive unle ss anyNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 9
rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 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) ). I n c omi ngto t

his a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty det erm inatio n, the imm ig ra tio n c ourt pr ov ide s, in i ts tw e nty -s ix pa g e or a l dec isi on , a laund ry lis t of re a so ns wh y

the c ou rt did no t be lie ve Mr . V us ha

j to be c re dib le . V us ha

j f a ile d to me nti on the be a tin g and tor tur e duri ng his imp ri so nme nt in 19 94 in h is written applications. Despite alleg edly being beate n to a pulp a nd almost dead, Vusha

j’s wife f ailed to rec all any

phy sical injuries to Mr. Vushaj a fter his imprisonment. Vushaj also failed to include t h e t w o a l l e g e d

a t t e mp t e d

k i dn a p p i n g s o f h i s s o no nan y o f

h i s w r i t t e na

p p l i c a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y, Vushaj lied duringhis testimony when he said that he ha d never been c onvicted of a

cr ime in the United States. I n fac t, Vushaj had pled g uilty to obstruc ting a police of fice r and dome stic violence and batter

y to h i s wi fe

. This guilty plea wa s also not included on any of Vushaj’ s written applications. In sum, the immigration court found Vusha j’s testimony

to be “va g ue,” “ ambig uous,” “nonsensica l,” and most importantly not cre dible. The immigr ation court a lso found the Vushajs’ a pplications suspect bec ause of two documents which the court found to be forg erie s. One was the birth cer tificate of Mendrit, which is spelle d Mendrit on the birth ce rtificate while the y oung man testified to beingnamed Ma drid. Although the im m i gra t ion court fe els this document is of g reat import to t he cr edibility of the Vushajs, it seems to this Court t o be a hig hly irrele vant inco n sistency

. Se e Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926 (holding that adver se cr edibility finding s cannot be based on “ an irre levant inconsistency”). The sec ond document that the immigr ation court found to b e fr audulent was the order for Vu sh a j’ s d e te nti on

a nd mur de r i ssu e d o n A ugus t 15 , 1 99 7. Th e S ta te De pa rtme nt f ound thi sNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 10 document to be a

forg ery upon contac ting the D irec tor of the Police f or Shkodra, B ilbil M ema. Vushaj arg ues t hat M ema has suspect credibility in ref uting the document bec ause Me ma has be en
acc used of collaborating with huma n and drug traff

icker s and bec ause Me ma was the one who issued the orde r ag ainst Vushaj. Neither of these a ccusations were c redible to the immigration court and we have no basis to question this determination. The a ccusat i o ns ag ainst Mema sound more like rumor, comingfrom two internet news ag encie s. Additionally , Mema’s name a nd signature a

ppear nowher e on the or der de spite the fac t that his ti tle as Dire ctor of Police appea rs on the docume nt as the per son authoring the orde r. Considering these inconsis tencies f rom Vushaj’s testimony , his applications, and other documents pre sented to the immigr ation court, ther e wa s s u b stantial evidenc e to support the immigration c ourt’s adver se cre dibilit y deter mination. This e vidence cer tainly does not rise to the sta nd ard that “ any re a so na ble a dju dic a tor wo uld be c omp e lle d to c on c lud e to t he c on tr ary” of

thi s adver se cr edibility

finding

. Yu , 364 F.3d at 702. B. The Fr ivolousness of the Vushajs’ A pplications Th e imm ig ratio n c ourt

de c ide d th a t th e Vu sh a

js’ a pp lic a tio ns we re fr ivo lou s b a se d o n th e ir submissi on of two docume nts which they knew to be fra

udulent: the birth cer

tificate a nd the orde r for de tention. This finding wa s aff irmed by the B oard

. Un d er 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20, “a f inding of frivolousness does not automatica lly flow from an adverse c redibility deter mination.” Muhanna v. Gonzales , 3 99 F .3 d 5 82 , 5 89 (3 rd Cir . 2 00 5) . Rathe r, the imm ig ra tio n c ourt mus t specific ally

find [] that the alien knowing ly filed a f rivolous asy lum application. For purp os e s o f th is sectio n, a n a sylum a pp lic a tio n is fr ivo lou s if

any of its material eleme nts is deliberately fabricated

. Such a finding shall only be made i f t heNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 11

De sp ite thi s f

a vo ra ble ru lin g on

Vu sh a j’ s f ri vo lou sn e ss a

pp e a l, i t ha s n o b eari ng on thi s 2 Court’s final re sult. I f an a lien is determined to have submitt ed a f rivolous application, then they are no longe r eligible for any benef its of asy lum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)( 6). Be cause of t he immigr ation court’s a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination (and our a ffirma nce of that decision), the Vushajs ar e not e lig ibl e fo r a sylum

e ve n w iththe ir

a pp lic a tio n b e inghe ld t o b e no t f ri vo lou s. immigration judge or

the B oard is s at i s fi ed that the applica nt, during the cour se of the proc ee d ings, ha s had suffic ient opportunity to acc ount for any

discrepa ncies or imp la us ibl e a sp e c ts o f t

he c la im. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (empha sis added)

. I n this case , the birth ce rtificate discrepa ncy is not a “mater ial element” an d , t h er efor e, should not have be en conside red a s a re ason for the applications to be deter mined to be frivo lous. Additionally , the discussion from the immigr ation court ne ver
a de qu a tel y

e xpla ins ho w the su

bmi ssi on of the de te nti on

or de r w a s a

de lib e rate a c t by

Vu sh a j to mislead the immigration court. By Vushaj’s own a dmission, he rece ived t he document via his father , who had rece ived i t from a family friend in Albania. Considering this chain of possession that the do c u m e n t t o o k , a l o n g w i t h i t s l o o k o f v e r a c i t y , t h e i m m i g r a t i o n c o u rt a p p e ar s t o h a v e e r

re d to

a ssume that V us ha

j pr e se nte d th is d oc ume nt t o in te nti on a lly de fr a ud the imm ig ra

tio n c ourt
. There fore , we r ever se the immigr ation court’s determination that the Vusha js’ applications
we re fr ivo lou s. 2 C. T he Vu sh a

js’ Mo tio n to Re op e n th e ir Ca se Finally , the Vushajs appe al the B oard’s decision deny ing the ir motion to reopen the proce eding s. “The decision to g rant or deny a motion to re open . . . is within the discretion of the Boa rd.” 8 C.F .R. § 1003.2(a). We reviewthe B oard' s denial of a motion to reopen for

an abuse of discretion. Haddad v. Gonzale s , 437 F.3d 515, 517 (6th Cir. 2006). I n order for a Boa rd t o considerNos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 12 a mot ion to reope n the proc eeding s, it must be ac companied by evidenc e which is “ materia l and was not available a

nd could not have be en discovere d o r presented a t the former

hear ing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). I n the ir mo ti o nto r e o p e nth e c a s e , th e V u s h a js p r e s e n te d

th e B o ar d

w it h tw o h an dwritten letters fr om two former

Albanian police office rs who wr ote to co n fi rm t h at the contents of the detention orde r we re true . Whil e these documents ar e cle arly materia l to the previous holdings of the imm ig ratio n c ourt

a nd the B oa

rd , Mr. Vu sh a

j nev e r expl a ine d to the B oa rd wh y the se state me nts
we r e p r e vio us ly

un a va ila ble , e sp e c ia lly

in l ig ht o f t

he fo ur -y e ar d e lay

be tw e e n V us ha

j’ s in iti a l me ri ts he ari ngin 2 00 0 a

nd the fi na l on e c on du c te d in 20 04 . V us ha

j’ s b ri e f pr ov ide s no g uid anc e , o nly to say the evidenc e wa s “pre viously unavailable .” This is insufficient to demonst rate an abuse of discretion by

the B oard. There fore , we a ffirm the decision of the B oard de ny ing Vushaj’s motion to reopen his ca se. I V. B a sed on t

he a bo ve dis c us sio n, we DENY the Vu sh a js’ pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w a s to the ir
remova bility and their motion to reope n, but REVERSE the B oard’ s decision that their a pplication
wa s f ri vo lou s.Nos. 05-3156/ 05-3906

Vushaj v. Gonzales Pag e 13 RY AN , Ci rc uit

Judg e , c on c ur

ri ngin p art

and dis se nti ngin p art
. O u r “ s u b s t a n t i a l evidenc e” standard of revie w does not permit us to dist urb the I J ’s finding that the petitioners’ la ck of c re dib ili ty

pr e c lud e s th e ir

re qu e st fo r as y lum and re la te d re lie f. B ut, in my vie w, ne ith e r d oe s it permit us to disturb the I J ’s conc lusion that Gjelosh Vusha j’s application wa s frivolous. Iwould not have ma de that finding had I been the authorized fac t finder, but I was not, and I

cannot sa y , g iven the re cord be fore us, that the I J ’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence

. That said, I

concur in the court’s judg ment denying the petition for re view.