## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 06

- 4107 A LBE RT M USO LLA RI an d V ER GJ I NUS H M USO LLA RI, P etitio ners, v.
M ICHAEL B. M UKASE Y, A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No s. A95-395- 303 &A 95-395- 304

A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 18, 2007

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 19, 2008

Befo re E VANS, W I L L I A MS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Albe rtM usolla riand hi s wife, Ve r gj i nus h, a r e na ti ve s an d c iti ze ns o fAlba ni a who enter ed the U ni ted S tat es i n 200 1 o n vi si tor ’ s v i sas . They ove rs tay ed and then so ught as yl um , withhol ding of re m ova l, and prot ecti on under the Con ve n tio n A gainst T or tu re (“C A T ”). A n Im m igr at ion Ju d ge (“IJ” ) d en ied th eir2 N o. 06

- 4107

V ergjinu sh M usoll ari ’ s app li cat ion was derivati ve ofher 1 h u sb a n d ’s. S ee 8 U. S. C. § 11 58 ( b) ( 3) ( A) ( “A s pous e or c hi l d .

. . of an al i en who i s gr ant ed as yl um under thi s s ubs ec t i on m ay , if no to the r wi s e e l i gibl e f ora s yl um un de r thi s s e c t i on, be gr ant ed the s am e s t atus as the a l i eni fac c om pany i ng, or fo llo w in g to jo in , su ch al ie n .”). appl i ca ti o n, fi ndi ngM us o l l ar i ’ s t es ti m o ny i nc r edibl e, a nd the Bo a rd o fI mm i g r a t i o n Appe a l s ( “ BI A” ) a ffi r med

. Be c a us e the de c i s i o ns by the IJ a nd the BI A a r e s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence and the re cor d does no t com pel a contr ar y c oncl usi on, we deny the M usol l ar i s’ p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w.

I . B a c kg r o und T h e M u so llar is c am e t o th e U n ite d Sta te s fro m A lba n ia i n J anuary20 01 on vi sas thatper m i tte d them to st ay f or six m ont hs

. Th ey ha ve tw o c hildren : K evin, w ho w as born i n A l b a n i a , wa s l e ftb e h i n d a n d r e ma i n s th e r e ; a nd D av id , w h o w as bo rn in th e U n ite d Sta te s. T h e M u so llar is d i d n o t r e t u r n t o Alb a n i a b y th e i r d e p a r t u r e d a te a nd su bs eque nt l y fi l ed ana ppl i ca ti o n s ee k i nga sy l um , wi th

ho l d ing o fr emov al, a nd pr o te ct i o n un derthe CAT. The 1 pet i ti o n was r ej ec te d b y a n a sy l um o ffi ce r, a nd the M usol l ar i s a pp ear ed bef or e a n IJ f orr em ova l pro ceedi ngs. Atthe h e a r i ngMus o l l a r i r e c o un t e d a h i s t o r y o fh a r dsh ip s h e sa id h e a n d h is fa m ily h ad su ffer ed as a re su lt of h is in vo lve m en t in A l b a n ian p olit ics . W h at follow s is a s um m ar y o fhi s t est i m ony.N o. 06

- 4107 3 M us o l l ar i s er ve d i n the Alba ni anmil i ta r y dur i ngthe fin al d ay s o f co m m u n istco n tr ol in th e e ar ly 1 9 9 0s . In 1991 M usol l ar i d i sob eye d a d i re ct o rderfro m hi s s up er i or o ffi ce r t o fi r e o n a g r o up o f ci vi l i an s who wer e at te m pting to fl ee the c ountr y b y b oat
. Fe ar i ng r epri salfor h is disobe d ience, M usol l ar i bo ar ded the boatwith the ci vi l i ans; i t was bo und forI tal y. I tal i an o ffi ci al s, however, r etur ned M u sol l ar i and other sol die rs to A lbani a, and upon th eir re turn he and th e ot h ers were ar re ste d and beate n by A lbani an o ffi ci al s. I n 199 2 the co m m unis t g ove rnm ent fel lan d t he Dem ocratic Pa rty, of w hich M us oll ari is a m em ber, took p ow er. That party’ s e l ecto ra l superi or i ty l ast ed unt il 1997 w hen th e Sociali st Pa rty sw ep t the elections. M us oll ari, how ever, cl ai m ed that the Soc ialists sei zed the re i ns o fpow er“by f o r c e o f a r ms , ” th r o u g h v i o l e n c e a n d i n t i mi d a t i o n . He te s t i fi e d th a t h e b e c a me a t a r g e t o f th e s e t a c t i c s a ft er he gave a speech a t a pro tes t r al l y in hi s ho m eto w n of K or cë. M us olla riwas f or ced to fl ee, and hi s ho m e was ra n sa c ke d d u rin g h is a b se n c e . H is n eig hb or s t old h im the pol i ce, notr andom i ntruders , were the c ulpr i ts. M u so llar i w as arr es te d in O c t ob er 19 97an d ag ain in S ept embe r 19 98

. H e te st i fi ed th at he was be at en dur i ng th es e d et en tio n s a n d int er ro ga te d ab ou t h is a c tiv itie s in the Dem ocr ati c Par ty; he a l so sai d th e pol i ce t ri ed to f or ce hi m to spy on o therm em ber s o fthe party
. The pol i ce ar r es te d M us o l l ar i a g ai n in Nov embe r o f2 00 0, a fte r he ser ved as an e l ecti on o bser verf orthe D em ocr ati c Par ty d u rin g e lec tio n s t h e p re vio u s m on th . H e c laim ed th at in the c ours e ofhi s duti es as an el ecti on o bser ver, he wit

-4 N o. 06

- 4107

nesse d voting i rr egul ar i ti es th at enabl ed the So ci al i st P ar ty to w inth e e lec tio n . H e t es tifie d th at h e w as ag ain i nt er r o g at ed abo utthe De m o cr at i c Pa r ty ’ s ac ti vi ti es a nd thre ate ned w i th vi ol ence aga i nst hi s f am i l y. A fterthi s l asti nci dent, the M usol l ar i s d ec i ded to fl ee Alb an i a. The y o bt aine d no ni m m i g r an t vi sa s per m i tt i ng th em to com e to the U nited States for six m ont hs , bu t w ere for c ed to lea ve th eir so n, K ev in, beh in d . Th ey arr ive d in th e Uni te d S ta te s i n 2 00 1, o ve r st ay ed, a nd s o ug hta sy l um i n 200 2. The M us oll ar i s wentb efo r e anIJ i n the f al l o f2 00 3. The IJ d en ied th eir cla im s fo r as ylu m , w ith h old in g of re m ov al, an d pr o te ct i o n und er the CAT be ca us e he fo und M us o l l ar i ’ s t e s t i mo nyin c r e d ib l e a n d l a c k in gc o r r ob o r at i o n. F ur th er, the IJ de ni ed v ol unt ar y de par tu r e be ca us e he believed that M us oll ari w as no t of good m oral ch aract er. T he M us oll aris app ealed , and t h e BIA affirm ed the IJ ’s deci si on e xc ep t a s t o vol untarydepartur e. The cas e was re m anded to the IJ o n that i ssue. A t th e su b se q u en t he ar in g bef or e th e IJ, th e M u s o l lar is w i th dr ew the i r a ppl i ca ti o n f o r v o l unt ar y de par tu r e an d i nstea d sought to prese nt new ev i dence on thei r cl ai m s. T he y d id n ot state w ha t the new eviden ce w a s, how ever. So the IJ deni ed the re quest a nd ente re d an or der o f re m ov al . T h e M u so llar is a ga in ap p ea led , an d th e B IA a ffi r med

.
I I . Discussi on The BIA adopted the IJ ’ s o pini on, so we base o ur r evi ew on th e IJ’s a n aly sis

. B alogun v. Ashcrof t, 3 74 F. 3d 492, 49 8N o. 06

- 4107 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)

. Ourr ev iew of ano r derde ny i nga sy l um ba se d o n a f ai l ur e to pr o ve e l i g ibi l i tyi s ex tr emel y de fer en ti al ; “the adm i ni str ati ve fi nd i ngs o ff act ar e co ncl usi ve unle ss any r eas onabl e a dj ud i cato r w oul d be co m pel l ed to con clud e to the con trary.” 18 U

. S. C

. § 1252(b)(4)( B ); Si na v. Go nz a les , 476 F.3d 45 9, 46 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Balog un , 374 F. 3d at 498 ( hol ding that the IJ ’ s fi nd i n gs m ay be ove rturned onl y i f“the ev i dence com pels a d i f f er en t re sul t”)

. I fan a l i en dem onst ra tes e li gibi l i ty, the A tto rney G e n e r a l h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n to r d e n y a s y l u m. G hebrem edhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 , 244 (7th C ir. 2004). “[ T] he Att o r ne y Ge n e r a l ’ s d i sc r et i o na r y j udg m en t w h et h er to gra n t re lief u n d er se c tio n 11 58 (a) o f th is t itle shal l be concl us ive u nl ess m ani fest l y c ontr ar y t o the l aw an d an ab us e of d iscretion.” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252(b)(4)( D ). The IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons ar e a l so acco rded su b s ta n tia l d efe re n c e a n d sh ou ld be ov er tu rn ed on ly “und erextr aord inaryci rcum sta nces. ” Gjeraz i v. G o nz a les , 4 3 5 F

. 3 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )

. D e fe r e n c e i s n o tu n l i mi ted, however ; the IJ ’ s rul i ngs c annot be b ase d on “co nj ecture ” o r “i nsuffi ci ent o r i ncom ple te evi dence” and i nstea d “m ust be supporte d by s peci fi c, cogent re aso ns” which “bea r a l egi ti m ate nexus t o the fi nd i ng. ” Id. The Att o r ne y Ge ne r alha s di sc r et i o n t o g r an t as y l um to an al i en “refugee. ” 8 U

. S. C. § 1158(b) ( 1) ( A )

. A “r efugee” is on e w h o is u n ab le or u n w illing to ret u rn to h is c ou n tr y of o rig in“b ec au se of p er se c u tio n or a w ellf o unde d fea r o f per se cut i o n o n ac co unt o f r ace, rel i g i o n, nati on ali ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul arso ci algr oup, o r po l i ti ca l o pi ni o n. ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 42 )

. The a ppl i ca nt6 N o. 06

- 4107

I n o rde r t o o bt ai n r el i efunde r 8 U. S. C. § 12 31 ( b) ( 3) f or 2 w ithholding of rem ova l, a n app li cant m ust “dem onst rat e a c l ea r pro babi l i t y ofpe rs ec ut i on ,” whi c h i s a m or e dem andi ng b u rd en th a n th a t fo r a sy lu m . Bal o gun , 374 F

. 3d at508. Si m i l ar l y, the stand ard f or w ithh old ing of rem ov al u nd er th e C A T is tha ti ti s “ m or e l i ke l y than not” t ha tthe a ppl i c a ntwi l l be tortured ifreturned

. 8 C. F. R

. § 1208. 16( c) ( 2)

. This to o i s higher than the burd en f or as y lu m . S ee D a n d a n v . A sh c ro ft, 339 F. 3d 56 7, 575 n.7 (7th C ir. 20 03 ). T hu s, i f t h e p etition ers failed to pro ve thei r c l ai m f or as yl um be c aus e M us ol l ar i ’ s t es t i m ony lack ed cred ib ility, the oth er claim s m u st also fail. ha s th e bur deno fpr o vinge l i g ibi l i tyf o r asylum , a nd the appli cant’ s t est i m ony al one m ay be s uffi ci ent t o sust ain the b urden i fthe app licant’s te sti m ony i s cr edibl e. 8 C. F

. R. § 2 08

. 13 ( a)

. Re fug ee status may be pr o ve n in o ne o f two way s. F i r st, “ i fa n a ppl i ca ntpr o ve s pas t per se cut i o n, a r e b u tt ab le p re su m p tio n aris es th at th e a lien h as a w ellf ounded fearo ffuture perse cuti on. ” C apric v. A shcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1084 (7th C ir

. 2004); 8 C

. F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)

. Se cond, an a pp l i cant m ay prove a w el l

- f ounded fearo f p er se c u tio n by d em on st ra tin g h is “ fea r is s u bj ec tiv ely g en u in e a n d ob j ec tiv ely rea so n ab le in ligh t o f cr ed ible ev id en c e.” Ca pric, 355 F. 3d at 1085 ; 8 C

. F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)

. Th e s ubj e c t i v e co mpo ne nt“ t urns l a r g e l y u po n the a ppli cant’ s o w n tes ti m ony and cre dibi l i ty, ” C apric, 355 F. 3d a t1 0 8 5 , wh i l e the o bj e c t i v e c o mpo ne ntr e qu i r e s the a ppl i ca ntt o s ho w th at he wi l l b e sing l ed o utf o r pe r se cutio n or th at a gr ou p to w h ich th e a p p lica n t be lon gs is su bj ec t to a pa tt er n or pr ac ti ce o fpe r se cut i o n. 8 C. F

. R. § 208.13(b)(2)

. 2N o. 06

- 4107 7

Sect ion 1158(b)( 1) ( B) was add ed b y the R EA L ID Act of2005, 3 Pub. L. No. 10 9- 13 , § 10 1( a) ( 3) , and appl i es on l y t o a ppl i c at i ons f o r a sy lu m th a t w er e fil ed o n o r a fte r M a y 11 , 20 0 5

. Id. § 10 1 (h )(2); seeal so O yeku n l e v. G on zale s , 498 F. 3d 715, 717- 18 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )

. Mus ol l a r i ’ s a ppl i c a t i onwa s r e c e i ve d o n Fe bruary 1, 2002. Thu s, as yl um cas es often turn o n the IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on; an advers e cre dibi l i ty fi nd i ng w ill d oo m the a pp l i cant’s cl ai m ed el i gibi l i ty as a “ re fugee” under ei therm etho d ofpro of

. “ ‘ A cr edib ility anal ysi s a sse sse s the a pp l i cant’ s cl ai m o nl y fori nter nal co nsi ste ncy, de ta il, an d pl au sibi l i ty, ty pical l y de m o ns tr at ed byb ac k g r o und ev id en c e c on c er n in g g en er al c ou n tr y c on d itio n s, if av ailab le . .

. .’ ” Gj e r azi, 43 5 F

. 3d at 808 ( quoti ng C apric, 355 F. 3d at 10 85 ); s e eal s o 8 U

. S. C. § 1 158(b) ( 1) ( B)( i i i )

. Cor robor ati on 3 i s g ener al ly n ot r equi re d to m eetthe peti ti oner ’ s bur den of p r o o f u n les s t h e IJ find s t h e t es tim on y n otcr ed ible w ith ou t it

. C apric, 35 5 F .3d at10 85 -86 & n .4 (d isc u ss in g in w h ich sit u at ion s c or r o b or at ion is re q u ire d to m ee t p et itio n er ’s bu rd en of p ro of); see also 8 C. F

. R. § 2 08

. 13 ( a) ( “T he te st im on y of t h e a p p lica n t, if cre d ible , m ay be s uffi ci en t to susta i n the burden ofpro ofwitho ut co rr obo ra tio n. ”) (em p ha sis add ed ). I n thi s ca se , the IJ f o und Muso l l ar i no t cr ed ibl e, r es ting th i s d e t e r mi na t i o n o n a n u mb e r o ff a c t o r s , o n l y s o me o fwh i c h ( a s we wi l l e xp l a i n) a r e s up po r t e d b y the r e c o r d. Fi rs t, the IJ vi ew ed M usol l ar i ’ s cl ai m that he w as inter ro gat ed and thre ate ned after ser vi ng as an el ecti on o bser ver w ith sk ep tic ism , say in g s u c h c laim s w er e e x tr em ely co m m o n a m o ng sta ppl i ca nt s fr o m Alba ni a. Re l at edl y, the8 N o. 06

- 4107 IJ di sbel i eve d M usol l ar i ’ s cl ai m thatthe So ci al i st Party a s k e d h i m i n No v e mbe r 2 0 0 0 t o ma ni pu l a t e a n e l e cti on th atha d o ccurred the month b efo r e. The IJ a l so tho ug ht M us o l l ar i ’ s ar r es ts i n 1 99 7 an d 1 99 8 wer e no t si g ni fi ca nt e n o u gh to w ar ra n t d et aile d co n sid er at ion . N ex t, th e IJ note d that M usol l ar i ’ s t est i m ony about the Soc i al i st Party s ei zi ng co ntro l o fthe gov er n m en t in 199 7 thro ugh force and viol en ce w as “d iam etricall y opp o s e d ” b y i nform ati on in countr y r epor ts and otherso urces o fhist or i cal d at a e st ab lish in g t h at th e D em oc ra tic gov er n m en t c oll apsed that yea r because o fsca nd aland chaos as soc i ate d w ith th e fa ilu re o flarg e “ p yr am id sc h em es .” T h e IJ al so f aul ted M usol l ar i ’ s f ai l ure to produce co rr obo ra tio n for h is t w o a rre st s a n d th e c laim ed ran sa c kin g of h is hom e bythe po l i ce . F i na l l y, the IJ no te d tha t M us oll ari conceded h e l i ed to A m er i can o ffi ci al s about hi s purpose f orco m i ng to the U ni ted S tat es i n or der t o obt ain a v i sa. A s we have note d, our re vi ew of the re cor d rev eal s a n u m b er of m ist ak es in t h e IJ’s re as on in g. M u so l l a r i te st ifi ed that he was a n el ecti on o bser veri n Octobe r of20 00 and w as detai ned and threa tened bypol i ce in N ove m ber of 2 00 0 b as ed on th is p olit ica l ac tiv ity . Th e IJ fo u n d th is i mpl a us ib l e b a s e d in pa r to n hi s p e r s o na l e xp e r i e nc e w ith A lbanian asylum seekers

— 90 % of w h o m , t h e IJ sai d, cl ai m to have been A lbani an el ecti on obser ver s. The IJ was entitled, b as ed o n h i s ex per i en ce a dj udi ca ting th es e cl ai m s, t o que st i o n Muso l l ari fur th ero n the details o fhi s a pp oi ntm ent a nd se rv i ce a s a n el ecti on obs er ver

— and sh ou ld h ave done so

—b u t t h is in its elf is a n i ns uffi c i e ntg ro und o n whi c h t o r e s ta n a dv e r s e c r e dibi l i ty fi nd i ng.N o. 06

- 4107 9

T he IJalso b eliev ed tha t t he secon d arre st occu rred in July 4 19 98 ; i n h i s br i efM us ol l ar i c al l s thi s a “di s t urbi ng” m i s take because he w as “arres ted and beaten i n O ct ober of1998. ” Based on our revie w o fthe rec ord, bo th d ates are inc orrec t. M usoll ari tes ti fie d that the second arres t oc curred on Septem ber 14, 1998. T he IJ also erred in evalu ating th e reason s for M us oll ari’ s detenti on in N ove m ber20 00. M usol l ar i neve r cl aim ed , as the IJ as ser ted, that S oci al i st Party a gents as ked hi m to m an i pul at e th e r es ul ts o fthe pr ev i o us month’ s el ec ti o n. I ns te ad, he t es ti fi ed th atthe y “ want ed m e to gi ve al l the i nfo rm ati on about the m em ber s ofthe dem ocr ati c p ar ty or to o urpl an s wher e [ si c] , a nd a lso t el l the na m es o fthe democ r at i c par ty
. ” Demandi ngthe na m es a nd l o ca ti o ns ofl oca l D em ocr ati c Par ty m em ber s, as wellas i nfo rm ati on about thei r pla nned ac tivit i es, i s no t the sa m e thi ng as att em pti ng to c oer ce the m ani pu l ati on o fa vot e that oc c u rre d a m on th e a r lier. T h e la tt er m igh t b e fa c tu ally im p lau sib le; th e fo rm er ce rt ain ly is n ot
. Se eC e ca jv. Gonzales , 440 F. 3d 897, 89 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 06) ( noti ng tha t “[ p]er secuti on o f[ A lban i an] Dem ocr ati c Par ty acti vi sts d uring this pe riod ha s been f ou nd i n a nu m ber of cases”). M u so llar i’s t es tim on y on th is p oin t s im p ly is n otsu sc ep tibl e o fthe i nter preta ti on the IJ pl aced upon i t. Fi nal l y, the IJ i nexpli cabl y s tat ed that M usol l ar i had no t cl ai m ed he was mis tr ea te d dur i nghi s two de te nt i o ns in Oc tober of 1997 an d S e p t e m ber of 1998, an d therefore the s e a r r e s t s we r e n o ts e r i o us e no ugh t o wa r r a ntfur ther co ns i der at i o n. M us o l l ar i ’ s tes ti m o ny was di r ec tly t o the 4 contr ar y, however

. H e s tat ed that i n O cto ber19 97 a num bero fS oci al i st Party m em ber s a tte m pt ed to10 N o. 06

- 4107 engag e M usol l ar i i n a deba te w hi l e a t a r est aurant
. M usol l a r i r e fus e d t o b e dr a wn i n a nd we nt ho me. S oo n th er ea fte r, the po l i ce c ame to hi s ho us e an d s ta r te d b ea ting h i m b e f o r e t a k i n g h i m t o th e s t a t i o n . O n c e th er e, he tes ti fi ed, he was threa tened with death and w as al so beat en with rubbe r sti cks. M usol l ar ial so tes ti fi ed that he w as arr est ed i n Se ptem ber19 98 on f al se charg es of h av in g illeg al fire ar m s in h is h om e. H e w as ta ke n to a c ell w here pol i ce “ us [ed ] vi ol ence” aga i nst hi m and i nter ro gat ed hi m abo ut hi s invol vem ent in the Dem ocr ati c Par ty. The IJ ei ther m i sunde r s t o o d or m i schar acte ri zed M usol l ar i ’ s t est i m ony about hi s a rr est s. N otwithstand i ng the se m i sta kes , however, the bal ance ofthe evi dence r el i ed on b y the IJ supports the advers e c re d ibilit y d et er m in at ion . M os t s ign ifica n tly

— an d th is w as em phasi zed by the BIA in affi rm i ng the IJ ’ s d ec isi on

— th e IJ r i g ht l y no te d tha t M us o l l ar i ’ s te st i m o ny re gar ding the Dem ocr ati c Par ty’ s l oss o fpow eri n 199 7 w as wh ol l y inconsi ste nt with w hat i s know n to have o cc ur r ed i n Alba ni a th aty ea r. M uso l l ar i t es ti fi ed th atthe S o ci al i st s se i ze d c o nt r o l fr o m the De m o cr at i c Pa r tyi n a vi o l en t o ve r th r o w ofthe go ve r nm en t. In r ea l i ty, the g o ve r nm en t o fthe r ul i ngDe m o cr at i c Pa r tywas b r o ug ht d ow n b y th e colla p se of l ar ge “p yr am i d sc h em es ,” w h ich leftth ou sa n d s p en n iles s. B UREAU OF D E M O C RACY, H UMAN R IGH TS & L A B OR, U

. S. D EP ’ T OF S TATE, A LBA NIA : P ROFI LE OF A SY L U M C LAIM S & C O UN TRY C ONDI T I ONS3 ( M ay2 00 1) ; T HE E UR OPA W ORLD Y EAR B OOK O NL I NE, A LBA NIA : C O UN TRY P ROFI LE, R EC EN T H ISTORY (Oc t. 2003 ); C O UN TRY I NF OR MAT I ON & P O LICY U NIT, U

. K. B O RDER A GE NCY, A LB ANI A A S S ES S MENT ¶ 4.7 (July 200 3). M em bersN o. 06

- 4107 11 of t h e D em oc ra tic P ar ty w er e b elie ve d to be co m p licitin the py r a mi d s c he mes ; c i v i l a nd e c o no mi c c ha o s f o l l o we d, an d the g o ve r nm en t us ed f o r ce i n a n attem pt to put do wn th e demons tr at i o ns . Re pr es en ta ti ve s o f both the Democ r at i c an d S o ci al i st par ti es ag r ee d to ab i de by the r es ul ts ofe l e c t i o n s i n J u n e a n d J u l y o f1 9 9 7, wh i c h, a s we h av e n ot ed , th e So c ialis ts sw ep t. B U R E A U OF D EM O CRACY, H UMAN R IGH T S & L A B OR, U

. S. D EP ’ T OF S TATE, A LBA NIA : P ROFI LE OF A SY L U M C LAIM S & C O UN TRY C ONDI T I ONS3 (M ay 20 01 ); T HE E UR OPA W ORLD Y E A R B OOK O NL I NE, A LBA NIA : C O UN TRY P ROFI LE, R ECENT H ISTORY (Oc t. 2003 ). M usol l ar i at tem pts to m i ni m i ze the sta rkdi ffer ences be twe enhis tes ti m o ny a nd the f ac tu alhi st o r y b y a r g ui ng th athe s i m pl y g av e “h i s i m pr es si on abo utwhatt r an spi re d.” But thi s s or t o fdram ati c di scr epancy be tw een an as yl um seek er ’s t est i m ony and the e stabl i shed back

g r o un d f a c t s ma y f o r m t he b a s i s o fa n IJ ’ s a dv e r s e c r e dibilit y fin d in g. SeeCa pric, 3 5 5 F

. 3d at1 0 8 5

. Al th o u g h we ha ve r epe at edl y c au ti o ne d ag ains t o ve r r el i an ce o n g en er al i zed i nfo rm ati on in countr y pr ofi les orS tat e Depart

m e n t c ou n tr y re p or ts , see O yek un le v. G o nz a lez , 4 9 8 F

. 3d 71 5, 71 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); D o ng v. G o nz a les , 421 F. 3d 573, 57 8 ( 7th Ci r. 2 005), i t i s per m i ssibl e foran IJ to co ntra st an asy l um appli cant’ s t est i m ony w i th speci fi c hist or i calf acts p ro vid ed in a co u n tr y re p or t, see H ua ng v. G o nz a les , 453 F.3 d 94 2, 94 7 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ), an d th at is w h at th e IJ d id here

. Once M us o l l ar i ’ s cr edibi l i tyw as cal l ed i nt o ques ti o n, the IJ w as enti tl ed to co nsi der the l ack ofco rr obo ra ti on f or othe r aspects o fhi s t est i m ony. Se e C apric, 355 F. 3d at 1085

-12 N o. 06

- 4107 86 ( “[I]f th e IJ fi nd s the te sti m ony to be incre dibl e, then a c on vin c in g e x p l anati on o fthe dis c re p an c ies or ex tr in sic

— an d cr ed ible

— c o r r o b o r a t i n ge v i d e n c e is requ ire d .”); see also Ik a m a -O ba m bi v. G o nz a les , 47 0 F

. 3d 720, 72 5 (7t h C i r. 20 06) ( “[ A ] n IJ m ay disb el i eve an a pp l i cant b ecause she f ai ls to p ro vid e c or ro b or at in g e vid en c e, an d su b se q u en tly d en y h er cla im .”). D es p ite h av in g n ea r ly tw o a n d a h alf ye ar s t o c om p i l e h is c as e, M u so llar i p re se n te d n o e vid en c e t o c or ro b or at e th e c or e fa c tu al a sp ec ts of h is cl ai m : hi s a rr ests in 199 7 a nd 19 98

— dur i ngwhi chhe tes ti fi ed that he was m i str eat ed

— or th e ra n sa c kin g of h is house by the pol i ce in Se ptem bero f1997. T he IJn ote d that cor robor ati ng testi m ony oraffi davi ts f ro m f am i l y o r f ri en d s m i ght r eas onabl y hav e be en o btained “i nsof aras A lbani a i s no t [ now ] exper i en c in g a ny ci vi l st ri fe o r w ar an d th at th er e a re reg u lar co m m er c ial c on ta c ts an d m ail c on ta c ts w ith th at co u n tr y.” F i na l l y, the IJ r el i ed on M us o l l ar i ’ s admi ss i o n tha t he gave f al se i nfo rm ati on t o the Am er i can Em bass y when applying f ora tr avel vis a. “Inconsi ste nci es that do not r el at e to the ba si s o f th e appl i ca nt ’ s al l eg ed fea r o fpe r se cutio n are les s p ro b at ive th an inc on s i s t en c ies th at d o.” B al ogun , 374 F.3d at50 4; se e also Korniejew v. A shcroft, 37 1 F. 3d 377, 38 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( fi nd i ng tha t a di scr epancy on a col l ate ra l m att er cannot “f or m the basi s foran a dvers e c re d ibilit y fin d in g ” on its ow n ). “N ev er th ele ss , m u ltip le m i sr epres entat i ons to A gencyo ffi ci al s ca n ser ve as a fa cto r i n the c r e dib i l i t y c a l c ul us . . . . ” Balog un , 374 F

. 3d at 50 4. A c c or d in gly , alth ou gh th e e rro rs in th e IJ’s a n aly sis give us p au se, w e con clud e tha t the eviden ce an d suffi cent “speci fi c, co gent re aso ns” s up portthe advers eN o. 06

- 4107 13

cr edibi l i tyfi ndi ng ; the reco r d do es no t co m pela c o ntr ar y c o nc l us i o n. The M usol l ar i s a l so chal l enge the IJ ’ s refusalto hear new evid en ce on rem an d , bu t this argu m en t is a non starter. They neve r expla i ned to the IJ o r the BI A wh at thi s new ev i den ce mightb e, no r hav e the y f av o r ed us wi tha descri pti on. T hei r f ai l ure to do so i s f atalto the ar gum ent. R ehm a n v . Go nz a les , 44 1 F .3d 5 06, 50 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( “[ C]our ts do not setas i de agenci es’ deci si ons unle ss m ist ak es ca u se p rej u d ice , an d h ow co u ld w e a sc er ta in p rej ud ice w ithou t an offer ofproof or som e sub stitut e?”). The M usol l ar i s’ per si ste nt f ai l u re to i denti fy thei r “new evid en ce” le a d s to the inevitab le conclu sion th at “th ere is n ot h in g m or e t o offe r.” Id. The peti ti on f orr evi ew m ust there f or e be D ENI ED
.

W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judge, d iss en tin g. B ec au s e I w ou ld gr an t t h e M u so llar is’ p et itio n f o r r ev iew , Ires p ec tfu lly di ss en t. As the maj o r i tya ckno wl e d g e s , th e r e a r e s i g ni fi ca nt fl aw s in the IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on. M ostnot abl y, th e IJ c o m pl et ely i g no r ed Alb er t M us o l l ar i ’ s te st i m o ny that he was bea ten o n f our occa sion s b y poli ce c ontr ol l ed by the S oci al i st Party, te st im ony that w as centr alto M usol lar i’s cl ai m thathe ha s be en per secute d i n the past.14 N o. 06

- 4107 I n m y v i ew , thi s fl aw al one re nd er s th e IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty d eterm i nati on defecti ve. But eve n i fthe IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty det er m i na ti o n c o ul d b e su ppo r te d b y the re as o ns he p ro vid ed (m os t o f w h ich w er e a lso d e f e c tiv e), I su b m it that the r eas on r elied u pon by the m aj or i ty does not j us ti fy a n a dve r se c r edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n. M usol l ar i, a m em ber of the Dem ocr ati c Party in A lbani a, tes ti fi ed that he was im pri sone d and beate n by m em ber s o f th e S o ci al i stPa r tywor k i ng fo r the g o ve r nm en t o n f o ur separ ate o ccasi ons. The fi rs t im pri sonm ent, in 1991, l ast ed one w eek

. M usol l ar i was hel d in a ce l l with s i xty t o seve nty othe r i nd i vi du al s, bea ten r egul ar l y, and subj ecte d to “psychot i c pre ssur e. ” The s eco nd i m pri sonm ent, i n 199 7, occur re d afterM usol l ar i s p ok e o ut ag ai nst what he be

liev ed to be frau d u l e n t a c tio n s b y t h e So c ialis t P ar ty in the J une and J uly 1997el ecti ons ( w hi ch the So ci al i st Party w on) . H i s ho use was r ansack ed and l ate r he was tak en f ro m hi s ho m e a nd h el d i n pri son f ora day. A pol i cem an p u t h is b oo t o n M u so llar i’s n ec k a n d t h r e a t en ed to kill hi m , and he was vi si ted i n hi s ce l l ev er y t w o hours by p olic em en w h o b ea t h im w ith ru b b er st ick s a n d to ld hi m theywere going to pun i sh hi m f oro rg ani zi ng ag ai nst th e S o c ialis t P ar ty . Th e t h ird im p ris on m en t o c c u rre d in 19 98 , whenM us o l l ar i was t aken to the po l i ce s ta ti o n a nd p ut i n a d ark cell

. H is w rists w ere bou nd w ith barbe d w ire an d h e w as be at en . Th e p oli c em en int er ro ga te d h im r eg ar di nghi s i nv o l ve m en t wi th th e Democ r at i c Pa r tya nd th re at en ed h im . Th e fo u rt h im p ris on m en t o c c u rre d in N ove m ber20 00, wh en be cause of M usol l ar i ’ s r efusalto hel p the S oci al i st Party duri ng the O cto berel ecti ons,N o. 06

- 4107 15 po l i ce m ena r r es te d hi m at a Democ r at i c Pa r tymeet i nga nd hel d hi m a l l da y, thr e a t e ning hi s wi fe a nd c hi l d. All o f these i nci dents o ccurr ed w hen the So ci al i st Party was the m aj or i ty partyi n go ver nm ent. I ne x p l i c ab l y, i n h i s o r d e r d e n y i n ga s y l u m, th e IJ ma de no m enti on wh ats oev ero fany ofthe physi calm i str eat
m en t t h at M u s o l l a ri su ffer ed d u rin g h is p ris on vis its . In f act, the IJ went so f aras t o st at e, seve ra l ti m es, that M usol l ar i di d not a l l ege he w as m i str eat ed du ring the 199 7 an d 1 99 8 det en ti o ns . F o r ex ampl e, he st at ed, “ Ido n’ t th i nk t h a t t h e b rie f d et en tio n on [sic ] O c to b er of 19 97, eve n if c re d ible , i s im p or ta n t t o th e re sp on d en t’s cla im , i ns of aras hewas no tm i s t r e at e d an d w as rele as ed aft er on ly on e d ay .” ( E m pha si s adde d. ) He a l so e xpr es se d the f o l l o wi ng com m ent r ega rdi ng the sa m e i m pr iso nm ent: “He w as hel d al l d ay but rel eas ed the fo l l owing day witho ut char ge. He m akes no c ontent ion that h e w a s m is treate d during his de t e nt i on . ” ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) Rega rdi ng the 19 98 i m pri so nm en t, the IJ s ta te d o nl y tha t hi s as se ss m en t was the sam e a s hi s a sse ssm ent o fthe 1997i m pri sonm ent: “Th at he was hel d onl y fora bri ef tim e. There was an ac cusati on that he w as harbo ring i l l ega l fire arm s a nd then re lea se d .” I n m y vi ew , these com m ents dem onst ra te a cr i ti caldefect i n th e IJ ’ s c r e d ib i l i t y d e t e r mi n a t i o n . Mu s o l l a r i ’ s a s y l um appl i ca ti on is b as ed o n h i s fea r o fpe r se cut i o n b y the S o ci al i stPa r tyupo n h i s retu rn to Alba ni a, whi chmean s h is t es tim on y re ga rd in g t h es e b ea tin gs is c e n tr al t o h is cl ai m . The IJ ’ s co m m ents re vealthathe s i m plyi gnor ed M us o l l ar i ’ s te st i m o ny o n thi s m att er . Thi s i s so m ethi ng16 N o. 06

- 4107 the IJ i s no t per m i tte d to do, and w e hav e o ver turned c re d ibilit y d et er m in at ion s in sim ilar ca se s. Se e, e . g. , Ade kpe v. G o nz a les, 480 F.3 d 525, 53 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “W e m ust affi rm the IJ ’ s deci si on unl ess i t i s n ot sup port ed by substa nti alev i dence .

. . o r unle ss the IJ i gnor ed proba ti ve evi dence. ”); To lo sa v . Ash cro ft, 384 F.3d 906, 909 (7th Cir. 2004 ); s e eal s o Agb orv. Go nz a les , 487 F.3d 499 , 504 (7th C ir. 20 07 ); N a k ibuk a v. G o nz a les , 421 F. 3d 473, 47 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “The te sti m ony that th e IJ i gnor ed w as centr alto N ak ibu ka ’s c laim of p er se c u tio n .”); co m pareI glesias v. M uk a sey, N o. 07-2910, 2008 W L 387 7 3 0 2 , a t *3 (7th C ir. A u g . 2 2, 20 08 ) (“a cla im th at th e B IA h as co m p let ely ign or ed th e e vid en c e p u t fo rt h b y a p et itio n er is an allegation of legal error”). Give n the IJ ’ s t re atm ent o fM usol l ar i ’ s uncontr adic ted ev i den ce r eg ar di ngthe b asi s f o r hi s cl ai m , Ido no t th i nk th e IJ ’ s cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n i s sa l va g eable. But d esp ite this cri tical err or, the m aj ority up hold s the IJ’ s ad verse cred ibi li ty d ete r m ination be cau se M us oll ari’ s descri pti on o fevents i n 1997d oes n ot com portw i th wh at is know n to h ave occ urr e d i n A lbania d uring that year. H owever, thatte sti m ony, albe i t inaccurat e, i s t angenti al t o h i s c l a i m a n d th e r e f o r e d o e s n o td i s c r e d i th i s c l a i m. To b eg i n, Ia m no t su r e M us oll ari ’ s des cr i pti o n o fthe election in 1997 is d iam etricall y op p osed to th e rep ort reli ed up on by the IJin h is determ ination. M us oll ari te st i fi ed th at th e S o ci al i st Pa r tywonthe e l ec ti o n “ byus i ng th e f o r ce o fthe wea po ns a nd b y c o r r upt i o n. ” The r ep ort sta tes thatel ecti on ca m p aig ni ng f orthe 1997el ecti on w as “m ar re d by vi ol ence” and d es p ite the pr ese nce o fN o. 06

- 4107 17 th e M ul tina ti o na l Pr o te ct i o n For ce ( whi chha d b ee n s en t to A lbani a by the U ni ted N ati ons to re sto re ci vil ord er inA p ril 19 97 ) th re e p eo p le w er e re p or te d ly kille d in viol en t incide nt s d uring the vot ing. I t is tru e tha t M us oll ari di d no t m en ti o n the Py r ami d S chem e whi chc au se d the ci vi l unrest in e ar l y 1 99 7, a nd i t i s al so t r ue tha t th e r es ul ts o fthe 1 99 7 el ec ti o n wer e ce r ti fi ed as ha ving b e e n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y c o n d u c t e d

. B u ti ti s n o tc l e a r t o me f r o m th e tr an sc r i pt th at M us o l l ar i was ac ti ve l y l ying abou twh a th a pp e ne d. Atwo r s t, Mus o l l a r i ’ s de s c r i pt i on w as an exag geration o f th ose even ts told from the p erspe ct i ve o fs o m eo ne who a ffi l i at ed hi m se l fwi ththe l osing par ty i n thos e e l ecti ons. Of c ours e, an a dvers e credibi l i ty deter m i nati on ca n be su ppo r te d b y a fi ndi ngtha t a pet i ti o ne r i s ex ag g er at i ng about som ethin g b ut i t depends on the co ntext in w hi ch th e p et itio n er is offe rin g t h e in for m at ion atiss u e. Se eHanaj v. G o nz a les , 4 46 F.3d 69 4, 70 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ) (“A n IJ m ust a na l y ze i nc o ns i st en ci es a g ains t th e ba ck dr o p o fthe w hol e r eco rd, as o ne f acto r i n the ove ra l l cr ed ibil i ty d et er m in at ion .”); B alogun v. Ashcrof t, 3 74 F. 3d 492, 50 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ I n c o n s i s t e n c i e s th a td o n o tr e l a t e t o t he bas is ofthe ap p lic a n t ’s al leged fear of p ersecu tion are less prob ative tha n inc ons istenc ies that d o. ”). Even i fM usol l ar i ’ s descr i pti on o fthe eve nts of19 97 w as com ple tel y inaccurat e, M usol l ar i was not ask ed to provi de a f actual l y c or re ct hi sto ryo fA lbani a in 199 7. R at h er , he d es c rib ed t h e ev en ts t h at t ra n sp ire d in A lba n ia in 1 997 to pro vi de the back gr ound fo r one ofhi s a l l ege d be at i ng s bythe S o ci al i stPar ty
. Hi s des cr i pti o n o fthe18 N o. 06

- 4107

ev en ts o f1 99 7 was i n r es po ns e to hi s co unsel’ s que st i o n, “H o w di d thi s ‘ su ffer i ng ’ b eg i n f oryou ? ” and “ W ha t, if a ny thing, i n pa r t i c ul a r h a pp e ne d t o yo u i n J ulyo f19 97?” (Em p ha sis add ed

. ) H is suffering w as d r iv e n b y his pe rspect i v e ; b e c a us e Mus o l l a r ib e l i e v e d tha tthe 1 9 97 el ecti on s w er e co rr up t, he s poke out aga i nst the S oci al i st Pa r ty, whi chr es ul te d i n h i s 19 97i m pr i so nm en t an d beat i ng. W e hav e hel d on m any o ccasi ons that f oran inaccu racy orf al sehood to pro vi de an adequate basi s foran adv er se c r edibi l i tyfi ndi ng, tha t i na cc ur ac y mustg o t o the “h ea rt ” o f th e p et itio n er ’s c laim for a sy lu m . Ade kpe, 48 0 F.3 d at53 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); K llo k o qi v. G o nz a les , 43 9 F

. 3d 336, 34 1 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Hanaj, 446 F.3d at70 0; C apric v. A shcroft, 355 F. 3d 1075 , 10 90 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng ca ses f or th e pr o po si ti o n tha t m i no r i nc o ns i st en ci es o r o m i ss i o ns w ill no t s u p p or t a n ad ve rs e c re d ibilit y fin d in g); Ko rniejew v. A shc rof

t, 371 F.3d 377, 383-84 (7th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s f ac tu ali na cc ur ac y was no t th e “l i nc hpi n” o fhe r as y l um cl ai m )

. I t be ar s no tingtha t ev ena fte r the pa ss ag e o fthe RealI D A ct ( w hi ch does not affect t h is cl ai m ) , we have he l d tha t th e IJ s ti l l mustc o ns i derthe pu rp or te d i na cc ura c y w ith in th e con te x t of all re lev an t f ac to rs . Kadi a v. G o nz a les , 5 01 F

. 3d 81 7, 8 22 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( “[U nde r the RealI D A ct] , [ t] he i m m i gr ati on j ud ge m ay c on si der i naccurac i es orf al seho ods tha t d o n ot go to the hear t o f the asy l um appli cant’ s cl ai m , but he can do so on ly as p a r t o fh i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f‘ th e t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u mstan ces, and allrel evan t factors.’ ”). Iw ou ld fo ll ow thes e cases here bec au se M us oll ari’ s im p ression of the 199 7 elections d oes not g o to the h eartN o. 06

- 4107 19 of his claim

. W he n view ed i n t h e con tex t of th e ent ire he ar i ng, M us o l l ar i ’ s des cr i pti o n o fthe e ve nt s th att r an sp ire d in A l b a n ia in 19 97is en tir ely p er ip h er al t o h is c laim , w h ich is t h a t h e fe ar s re tu rn in g t o A lba n ia b e c a us e he wa s b e a t e n b y memb e r s o f the S o c i a l i s tPar ty w or ki ng f orthe gov er nm ent o n f our separ ate o ccasi ons. F ur th er m o r e, the po i ntM us o l l ar i w as m ak i ngi s tha t he w as beat en f orexpre ssing hi s o pini on ab ou t th e 1 997 el ecti ons and the S oci al i st P ar ty. The tr uth ofhi s o pini on i s n o tr e l e va nt

— i t m att er s o nl y whether he be cam e a target of viol e n c e based on his belief s. T ha t M us oll ari’ s i m press i on o fhow the Soci al i st Party gai ned pow erin 1 997 differ s fro m hi sto ri cal l y know n facts has no be ar i ng o n w h e t h e r h e w as be at en by th e So c ialis t P ar ty , no r d oe s it re vealanythi ng ab out hi s fear f orhi s s afety
. The IJ does not ex p lain oth er w ise

. See Sa n Ka i Kw o kv . G o nz a les, 455 F. 3d 76 6, 7 71 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( whethe r pe ti ti o ne r ha d a “ bo na fi de re l ati onshi p” w i th herhusband had no b ea ring on whethe r s he w as s ubj ec te d t o a n inv o l unt ar y abo r ti o n, an d the IJdid not ex p lai n h is r eason ing to the co nt rary). W i thout add re ssing M usol l ar i ’ s t est i m ony that he was beat en and how that m i ght r el ate to hi s i m press i on ofhi sto ri calev ents, a cre dibi l i ty d et erm i nati on ba sed o n th at im p ression alone be a r s no con ne ction to M us oll ari’ s cl ai m . Inde ed, i fM us o l l ar i i s te l l i ngthe tru th tha t he wa s be at enb y the S o ci al i stPa r tyf o r s pea k i ngo utabo ut the e l e c t i o ns i n 1 9 9 7, i tmi g hte xp l a i n hi s co l o r e d p e r c e pti on o fthe el ecti ons. U l ti m ate ly, the IJ neve r m ade a cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati on a s t o the k ey issue o fwh etherM usol l ar i ’ s fearo f20 N o. 06

- 4107 p ersecu tion is cred ibl e . H ad he reli ed on M us oll ari’ s i n a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o fe v e n t s t o fi n d th a te v e r y th i ng M us o l l ar i s ai d (i nc ludinghi s te st i m o ny r eg ar di ngthe beat i ngs) was f al se, Ithi nk thi s m i ght b e a d iffer ent c ase . Bu t the IJ does notco nnect thi s f actuali naccurac y t o M us o l l ar i ’ s cl ai m . In my vi ew, th i s g ap i n the IJ ’ s r ea so ni ng can not be fi xe d un less the IJprop erly con side rs M us oll ari’ s tes ti m ony that he was beate n a n d deem s i t cr edibl e o r incred ibl e. T ha t i s the tes tim ony that goes to the very hear t o fhi s cl ai m and the f act that the IJ co m ple tely d isreg ar ded i t ta i nt s th e en ti r e det er m i na ti o n. Cf. G eorgis v. A shcroft, 32 8 F

. 3d 96 2, 97 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2003) ( “[ H ] av i ng f ound that the o therfi ve re aso ns gi ven b y th e IJ f ordi scr edi ting[ th e pet i ti o ne r ] a r e ei th er unsuppo r te d b y the e v i de nc e i n the r e c o r d o r b a s e d o n i nc o mpl e t e o r i mpr o per ly ex c lu d ed ev id en c e, w e ar e n otin c lin ed t o d efe r to h is cr edibi l i tydet er m i na ti o ns on th i s r emai ni ngs i xth g r o und alone.”). Iexpre ss n o op i ni on a s t o the ul ti m ate m er i ts of M us o l l ar i ’ s as y l um c l ai m o r a s to hi s cr edibi li ty. But be ca us e th e IJ’ s dec i si o n c o m pl et ely i g no r ed te st i m o ny that goe s t o t h e hear t o fthe asy l um cl ai m , Isubm i t that such a det er m i nati on ca nnot be sa ved by re l i ance o n tange nti ali naccurac i es. I w oul d gra nt the peti ti on f or re hear i ng.

9- 19- 08