* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5TH CIR. 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), his wife, 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

Clerk
No. 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 supportthe 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 of future 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 asylum 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’s adverse credibility findings

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

findings were the country reports submitted by the Governmentthat show there
No. 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 Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2006). Although

the IJ erred in determining that the REAL ID Act 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 of A-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 also failed to show that it is more likely

than not they would be subjected to torture upon their return to Albania, and

therefore have under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir.

2002).

The Haxhiajes have not demonstrated thatthey 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 source which 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 Relating 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. 2006).

Thus, Haxhiaj cannot assert rights beyond those contained in the INA and its

amendments. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.