* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60880 Summary Calendar

SHPETIM HAXHIAJ; VALENTINA HAXHIAJ; HENRI HAXHIAJ Petitioners v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A98 545 620 BIA No. A98 545 621 BIA No. A98 545 622
Before KING, GARWOOD and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The petitioners, Shpetim Haxhiaj (Haxhiaj), hiswife, and his minor child,
are natives and citizens of Albania who entered the United States on nonimmigrant visas in January (wife and child) and March (Haxhiaj) 2004 and who admitted removability in February 2005. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after determining that they had not demonstrated past United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60880

1While some of these inconsistencies were not particularly significant by themselves, others were very relevant to the credibility of Haxhiaj’s central claims, and taken together, the numerous inconsistencies and omissions in the record support the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. Some of the relatively minor discrepancies included Haxhiaj’s testimony that police officers had been to his home four times, though he later testified it had been five times; testimony that in December 2003 he had been beaten for five minutes, while his asylum application stated the beating lasted fifteen minutes; and testimony that he contacted a local radio or television station regarding his January 2004 arrest, while his asylum application stated he had contacted a local newspaper. More significant inconsistencies included Haxhiaj’s testimony that his family was persecuted by the communist regime in Albania, though this allegation was not included in his asylum application; Haxhiaj’s testimony that his father and wife had gone to the police station to report him as missing, while his wife testified that she did not go to the police station to look for Haxhiaj; and his asylum application statement that his house was blown up after his departure from Albania, though Haxhiaj failed to mention this while testifying before the IJ. 2 persecution or a well-founded fear offuture persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Haxhiajes argue that they: (1) proved they were entitled to asylum and withholding of removal; (2 ) the inconsistencies found by the Immigration Judge (IJ) were not central to their claims; and (3 ) they were not given an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies. The IJ found Haxhiaj was not credible based on numerous inconsistencies and omissions in his live testimony and asyl um application concerning the nature and circumstances of the
activities in which Haxhiaj was reportedly involved in Albania and the harm which he allegedly suffered. 1 Contrary to Haxhiaj’s argument, the IJ gave him opportunities to explain these inconsistencies, but the IJ found that his explanations were inadequate.Additionally, the IJ’sadverse credibility fi ndings
were based upon Haxhiaj’s frequent travel to Italy, Germany, and the United States, where he returned each time to Albania without expressing fears of persecution or seeking asylum. Also adding to the IJ’s adverse credibility findingswere the country reports submitted by the Government that showthereNo. 07-60880

3 is no objective evidence to support a fear of future persecution based on Haxhiaj’s political opinion. Because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by the record, and the evidence does not “compel a different conclusion,” we affirm the decision. See Mwembiev. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2006). A lthough the IJ erred in determining that the REAL ID Ac t applied, the IJ’s credibility findings do not rely on the changes made by the REAL ID Act and the Haxhiajes have not shown that the IJ’s credibility findings were clearly erroneous under the standards in effect prior to the REAL ID Act. See Matter ofA-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106, 1109 (BIA 1998). Because the Haxhiajes failed to make the requisite showing for asylum, they cannot meet the more stringent standard for proving eligibility for withholding of removal. See Faddoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, the Haxhiajes have alsofailed to show that it is more likely than not they would be subjected to torture upon their return to Al bania, and therefore have under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir

. 2002)

.The Haxhiajes have not demonstrated that they were denied a fair hearing before an impartial arbiter. See Matter of Exame , 18 I. & N. Dec. 303, 306 (BIA 1982). They have not shown that the IJ had a bias stemming from an extrajudicial sourcewhich resulted in an opinion based on something other than what the IJ learned from his participation in the case. See id. And last, the 1967 United Nations Protocol Rel ating to the Status of Refugees is not selfexecuting and does not “confer any rights beyond those granted by implementing domestic legislation.” Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 597 (5th Cir. 200 6). Thus, Haxhiaj cannot assert rights beyond those contained in the INA and its amendments. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.