The Honor able James G. Carr , Chief United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 09a0153n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 23, 2009 No. 07-4530 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
TATJANA L L USHO and HERTA L LUSHO, Pe tit ion e rs , v. MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW O F A FI NAL ORDER I SSUE D B Y THE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS
OPI NI ON

Before: M ARTIN and GILMAN, Cir cuit Judges; and CARR, D istrictJudge. *

JAMES G. C ARR, DISTRICT JUDG E. This is a petition for revie w of a final ord er issued by th e B oa

rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls [B oa rd or B I A]. Th e B oa

rd dis mis se d p e tit ion e rs ’ appea l from the I mmigration Judge ’s [I J ] decision to deny their applications for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act [I NA], and withholding of r emoval under the Co n v e n ti o nA g a in s t T o rtu r e [C A T ]. For t h e reasons that follow, we DENY the L lushos’ petition for revie w of the B oard’ s
remova l order.Tatjana L lusho is the primary

applicant; He rta L lusho relies on her mother’s a

pplication. 1 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)
. 2 Bac kgr ound Petitioners Tatjana L lusho [ L lusho] and her teena g e daughter He rta L lusho are both natives and citizens of Albania. L lusho alleg es that she suff ere d past perse cution for her political activities 1 and fe ars f

uture pe rsec ution and torture if r emoved to Albania
. Acc ording to L lusho, in 1946, the then-ruling Communi st gove rnmen t s en t her f ather to a labor c amp for his a

nti-Communi st activities. Upon his relea se in 1948, th e g o v e rnment nationalized his possessions and relocated him to a small vill ag e. Duringthe Communist era , L lusho attended univer sity , but had difficulty g aining permission to do so despite her e x cellent g rade s. After fin i shing sc hool, L lusho was sent to a “ cente r for reloc ation of politically

incorre ct people.” Following the collapse of the Communist gover nm ent in 1996, L lusho and her husba nd joined the Union for H uman Rights Party [UHRP ]. L lusho served a s vic e chair of the women’ s section of the U HRP and worked a s a ca mpaig n observe r duringthe 2001 elec tion. On June 22 , 2 00 1, tw o d ay s b e fo re the e le c tio n, L lus ho and he r h us ba nd we re dr ivi ngho me from a U HRP meeting when t wo unm arke d vehicles stopped he r ca r. F our ar med men for ced L lusho and her husband out of their car and beat them. The men stole their elec tion materials and told them
n o tt o l e a v e h o m e o nJ u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 1 , e l e c t i o nd ay. L lusho did not c omply with the men’s instructions a nd went to he r assig ned polling loc ation
on e le c tio n d ay . T he re , sh e ob se rv e d De moc ra tic and Soc ia lis t pa

rt y re pr e se ntativ e s atte mpt ingto fix the elec tion. When she intervene d, the repr esentatives verba lly attacke d her and ca lled the police.3

When th e p o l i ce office rs ar rived, they

hit L lusho and drag g ed her into their van, whe re the y ha nd c uf fe d a nd de ta ine d h e r f

or thi rt y min ute s. When L lusho returne d hom e t h at evening, she rec eived a threatening phone ca ll. She
rec og nized the caller ’s voice a s one of the men who had attacke d her and her husba nd on J une 22. Th e c a lle r k

ne w H e rt a

wa s st ayingwi th a

n a un t ne arb y in Ti ran a

and thr e a te ne d to kid

na p h e r i f L lus ho sp ok e out a

bo ut t he e le ction ir

re g ula ri tie s. Th e L lus ho s im me diate ly we nt t o T ir ana

to
remove Her

ta from he r aunt’s house . L lusho and Hert a s t ay ed with a c ousin until J uly 13, 2001, when they

left for the United Stat es . He r husband re mained in Albania. O n September 9, 2001, L lus ho re tur

ne d to Al ba

nia and He rt a re ma ine d in

the Un ite d St a te s w ithhe r a un t. One month later , L lusho started re ceivingphone ca lls from a man thre ateningher a nd demandingmoney . L lusho contacte d the pol ice, but they ignor ed her reque sts for assistance . Then, on Dec ember

2, 2001, as L lusho walked down the street with a neig hbor, four men tried to kidnap her. The men beat her a

nd tried t o drag her into a van, but she esca ped with the aid of

her ne ighbor and other witnesses. L lusho later testified that the van in que stion wa s a police va n. L lusho states that one of the men had be en involved in the June 22 attack. On J anuar

y 12, 2002 , L lusho returne d to the United States. L lusho’s and He rta’s visas expired on October 11, 2002. On November 29, 2002, the I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service [I NS] s e r v e d th e L lu s h o s w it

h N o ti c e s to Ap p e ar

an d c h ar g e d th e m w it

hr e mo v a b il it y a s nonimmigra nts who had excee ded their la wful stay in the United States. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 22 7(a) (1) (B)
. L lusho conce ded the r emovability char g e, but she re quested a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval under the I NA and w ithholding of re moval under the CAT.The I J excluded the Dec ember kidnapping attempt from conside ration bec ause L lusho 2 failed to e stablish that she was tar g eted f or her political activities. Noting that L lusho’s husband is a prominent businessman, the I J deter mined that the attempted kidnappingcould have been motivated by

a non-political attempt to ex tort money from the f

amily
. 4 Opini ons of t he IJand B IAApp e als I n an ora l decision, the I J denied pe titioners’ reque sts for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under the I

NA and w ithholding of re moval under the CAT. The I J based her decision primarily on he r f ind ingthat L lus ho wa s n ot c re dib le be c a us e of tw o a lle g e dly

inc on sis te nt s tate me nts
. First, whe n the I J asked L lusho if the police had “ beate n” her on J uly 24, 2001, she answe red, “Y es . ” J oint Appendix [J .A.] at 114-15. Be fore this, L lusho had testified that the police hit and drag g ed her , but never used t he word “beaten.” The two documents that L lusho submit ted to support her c lai m d i d n o t re fer

to a beating. The witness statement noted that police “pulled” L lusho and took her outsid e and the UH RP chairman’s letter to the elec tion council said that “org anized and milit ant violence [was] exercised a g ainst [an] observe r and me mber.” J .A. at 115. Second, L lusho te stified that the men who attempted to kidna p her in D ece mber 2001 drove a police va

n. Statements in her asy

lum application s an d t h e wi tness statement, howe ver, did not indicate the involveme nt of a police vehicle. The I J found alter

natively , that even if L lusho was credible, she failed to mee t her burde n of proof e stablishing that she suf fer ed past pe rsec ution. The I J deter mined that only two events – the incidents on J une 22 and 24 – could be attributed to L lusho’s political a ctivities a n d t h at n eit her

“ r[o ]se to t

he le ve l o f the ty

pe of se ve re pa st p e rs e c uti on

so a s to re nd e r t

he re sp on de nt s ub

je c t to protec tion under the Ac t.” J .A. at 49. The I J discredited muc h of Llu s h o ’s t es t i mony about the 2 C o mm u n i s t g o v e r nm e n t ’ s p e r s e c u t i o no f

h e r f a m i l y , n o t i n g t h a ts h e w a s a l l o w e d t o a t t e n d u n i v e r s i t y.5

Finally , the I J found that even if L lusho w as cre dible and had suffe red past perse cution, the g overnme nt presente d sufficie nt e vidence to r ebut the presumption that past perse cution establishes
a we ll-founded f

ear of future perse cution. Be cause the UHRP is now in a coalition with the ruling Democr atic par

ty , the I J deter

mined that L lusho “no long er ha s a we ll-founded f ear of per secution up on he r r e tur n. ” J.A. a t 52 . T he I J als o n ote d th a t L lus ho ’s hu sb and , who wa s “ e qu a lly a c tiv e ” in the UHRP, has not suffe red ha rm while re maining in Alba nia. J .A. at 52. Stand ard of Review The Immigration and Natura liz ation Act gra nts this Court jurisdiction to review a n order by the B I A. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. W h en t h e B o ar d o f Imm i gra t i o nAp p ea l s af fi rm s t h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge without issui ng its own opinion, we review the I mmigration J udg e’s opinion. Ndrecaj v. Mukasey , 522 F.3d 667, 672 ( 6th Cir. 2008). When review ing a

final order of remova l, we r eview f actua l findings unde r the substantial
e vid e nc e sta

nd ard , w hic h me ans that fi nd in g s o f f a c t are c on c lus ive un le ss a ny re a so na ble
a d j u d i c a t o r w o u l d b e c o mp e l l e d

t o c o n c l u d e t o t h e c o n t r ar

y. Id. at 672-73 (interna l citations omit ted). We reviewleg al deter

minations de novo. Zoarab v. Mukase y, 524 F.3d 777, 780 ( 6th Cir. 2008)
. Discussion I. As ylu m An applicant for asy

lum bears the e videntiary burden of

proof a nd persua sion. M

a tte r of Dass, 20 I . & N . Dec . 120 (B I A 1989) . An applica nt’s t es timony

“ca n be suff icient to support an
app lic a t i o n f

o r a s y l u m w h e r e t h e t e s t i m o n y i s b e l i e v a b l e , c o n s i s t e n t , an d s u f

f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d to provide a plausible and c ohere nt acc ount of the basis for his fear .” Perkov ic v. I

.N.S. , 33 F.3d 615, 621 (6th Cir. 1994) (interna l citations omit ted).6

An applica

nt for asy

lum must establi sh – with credibility – that she is a re fug ee by d e mo n s trating either pa st persec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution on acc ount of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or poli tic al opinion. Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 674. Court s p re sume t hat an a pp lic ant who ha s su ff

e re d p a st p e rs e c uti on

ba se d o n a

statut or ily protec ted classific ation has a w ell-founde d fea r of future perse cution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1) . The g overnme nt can r ebut this presumption by establishing, by

the pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that
su c h f e ar i s n o lo ng e r w arr ante d d ue to c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion s. Id. Assuming a

rguendo that L lusho suf

fer ed past perse cution, we f ind that substantial evidence supports the I J ’s alter

native dete rmination that the g overnm ent pre sented suff icient evidenc e of Albania’ s chang ed country conditions to rebut the pre sumption t hat L lusho has a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. This Court has found that Albania’ s cou n t ry conditions have c hang ed such that politi cal p erse cutions are no longe r a sig nificant proble m. See Prifti v. Gonzales , N o . 0 4
- 3 9 0 9 , 2 0 0 5 WL 3113514, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2005) ( “[D]espite the preva lence of cr ime and police c orruption, ‘there is virtually

no evidenc e that individuals are targ eted for m istreatment on poli tical g rounds.’” ); Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 288 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“The re is docume n t at ion in the rec ord that sug g ests that conditions in Albania have chang ed in re cent y ear s.”). I n fac t, this C ourt has af firmed de cisi ons of other immig ration judg es who have denie d sim ila r a sylum a pp lic a tio ns , g le anin g inf

or matio n f ro m U nit e d St a te s D e pa

rtme nt o f S tate re po rt s. S ee , e. g . , Hy

z oti v. Mukase

y , 269 F. App’ x 563, 567 (6th Cir. 2008) (af firming denial of a sy lum ba se d o n c ha

ng e d c ount ry con dit ion s w he re a pp lic ant w a s p re sume d to have e sta bli sh e d p a st7

perse cution); Cutaj v. Gonzales , 206 F. App’ x 485, 491 (6th Cir. 2006) (af firming I J ’s relianc e on 2004 State Depa

rtment repor

t stating that “ther e are no indications of sy stemic political perse cution in Albania at the pr esent time”)
. Th e re c or d i n th is case inc lud e s th e 20 04 and 20 05 De pa

rtme nt o f S tate Human Ri g hts Reports for Albania. L lusho neither rebuts the i nformation contained i n these reports nor attacks our prec edents describing Albania’ s chang ed country conditions. She has failed to pre sent any evidenc e that sh e is l ike ly

to b e ha rm e d if re mov e d to Al ba

nia tod ay . H e r app lic a tio ns are ba se d o n e ve nts that oc c ur re d n e arl y six y e ars a g o, the De moc ra tic Part y is no w in po we r, and

he r h us ba nd , e qu a lly
a c tiv e in t he UH RP, h a s n ot s uf

fe re d h arm . There fore , we f

ind that substantial evidence supports the I J ’s conclusion that L lusho does not have a we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f futur e pe rs e c uti on . Ac c or din g ly , we c on c lud e that L lus ho is n ot e lig ibl e fo r a sylum
. II. Withh oldin g of Rem oval Under the INA and CAT Th e sta nd ard s f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l un de r t

he I NAand the CA T ar e str ic te r t ha n th os e fo r a sylum . U nd e r t

he I NA , th e a pp lic ant m

us t de mon str a te a

“ c le ar p ro ba

bil ity” that r e mov a l w ill result in a threat to her life or fr eedom ba sed on ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular social g roup, or political opinion. Thap v. Mukase y , 544 F.3d 674, 681 ( 6th Cir. 2008) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A)
. The CAT require s an applicant to e stablish that it is “more likely than not” that she will be tortured if r emoved. 8 C.F.R. 208.16(c) (2) . Be cause the I J corr ectly deter mined L lusho’s ineligibility

for a sy lum, it foll ows that L lusho would have been unable t o “satisfy the m ore string ent8

standard f or withholding of

[removal].” See Koliada v. I.N.S. , 259 F.3d 482, 489 (6th Cir. 2001)
. The I J , there fore , corr ectly denied withholding of re moval under the I NA and the CAT. Conclusion For the foreg oing r easons, we DENY the L lushos’ petition f or revie w of the re moval order and AF F IRM the dec isions of the Boa rd of Immigration Appeals and Immigration J udg e.