2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-8-2009 

# V eli h a j v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3584

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V el i h a j v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1048. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1048NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 3584 A S T R IT V E L IH A J, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 77 761 088) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e C har l es M . H oneym an

Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay20, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y8, 2009)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM A str itV eli h aj, a n ati v e a n d cit izen o f A lban ia an d a m em b er o f th at co u n try ’s2

D emocr at i c Party , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y2001. H e w as char ged as bei ng r emovabl e pur s uantt o I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”) § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) ] , bas ed on hi s entryi nt o thi s countryw i thoutbei ng admi t t ed or par ol ed. V el i haj appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainstT orture, cl ai m i ng that he feared persecut i on becau se tw o p ro m in e n t m o b ste rs h a d ra n sa c k e d h is h o m e a n d th re a ten e d h is lif e a f ter h e p u b licly i dent i fi ed them and a Soci al i s tPar tyoffi ci al as bei ng i nvol ved i n the i l l egal tr aff i cki ng of w o m e n . T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n ied re lief b e c a u se V e lih a

j f a iled to d e m o n stra te an ad equ at e nex us betw een h i s fear of persecut i on and his po l i t i cal op i nion, and becau se h e d id n o t sh o w th a t th e A lb a n ian g o v e rn m e n t w a s u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n tro l h is p o tential p erse cu tors. T h e B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) d ism issed V eli h aj’s appea l . T he B oar d t ook admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of the 2005 and 2006 St at e D epart m ent C ountryR eport s , w hi ch document ed the es t abl i s hm entof a w i tnes s pr ot ect i on pr ogr am foror gani zed c r i m e ca s es , a 20- fol d i ncr eas e i n the w i tnes s pr ot ect i on pr ogr am budget , an ab sen ce o f re p o rt s o f p o li ce inv o lvem en t i n tr af fick ing , an d the D em o cra ti c P arty ’s vi ct oryi n t he 2005 gene r al el ect i on. B eca us e the more r ece ntC ountryR eport s di d not s uppor tV el i haj ’ s cl ai m , the B oar d r ej ect ed hi s ar gum entthatthe I J s houl d have c ont i nued the pr ocee di ngs pendi ng publ i cat i on of thos e R eport s . T hi s t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew f o llo w e d .3

W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er IN A § 2 4 2 [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ]. W h ere , as h ere , the B IA b o th a d o p t s th e f

i n d i n g s o f

th e I J a n d d i s c u s s e s s o me o f th e b a s e s f

o rth e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , we r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . See X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . O urr evi ew of thes e dec i s i ons i s fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , cons i der i ng w hethertheyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the rec o rd c o n side red as a w h o le. ” B alasu b ram an ri m v . IN S , 1 4 3 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T h e d ec isi o n s m u st be af firm ed “u n less the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary concl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 471 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (q u o tin g A b d ille v . A s h c ro f t, 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . A n ap pli cant m aydem on strat e el i gibi l i tyfor asy l um byshow i ng ei ther past per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, n a t i o n a l i ty , me mb e r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . S e e I NA § 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ) [8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A )]. T o estab li sh a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us t( 1) pr ovi de cr edi bl e t es t i m onys how i ng a genui ne s ubj ect i ve fe arof per s ecut i on, and ( 2) demonstr at e as an obj ect i ve mat t erthat“a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he al i en’ s ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o the countryi n ques t i on. ” Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on and i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . “ [ A] k e yt a s k f o ra n ya s y l u m ap p l i c a n ti s t o s h o w a s uffi ci ent‘ nexus ’ betw een pe r s ecut i on and one of the l i s t ed pr ot ect ed gr ounds . ” N d a y sh im iy e v . A tt’yG e n ., 5 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). A n a sy lu m a p p lica n t,B eca us e V el i haj appl i ed foras y l um befor e M ay11, 2005, he i s nots ubj ectt o a 1 pr ovi s i on i n the R E A L I D A ctof 2005 thatr equi r es an al i en appl y i ng foras y l um i n a m i xed mot i ve ca s e t o s how “thatr ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ar s oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on w as orw i l l be atl eas tone ce ntr al r eas on” forthe al l eged per s ecut i on. See I N A § 208( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) ] ; N day s hi m i y e v. A tt ’yG en . , 5 5 7 F . 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 -29 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 4 how ever , need notdemonstr at e thatthe pr ot ect ed gr ound w as the exc l us i ve mot i vat i on behi nd the al l eged pe r s ecut i on. See Si ngh v. G onzal es , 406 F. 3d 191, 197 ( 3d C i r . 2005) 1 ( not i ng thati n a mi xed- m ot i ve ca s e, an al i en nee d onl y“s how thatthe per s ecut i on w as m ot i vat ed, atl eas ti n part , byone of the pr ot ect ed cha r act er i s t i cs ”) . N everthel es s , an appl i cantm us tpr ovi de s om e evi dence of m ot i ve, w hetherdi r ectorci r cumst ant i al . See Li e v. A s hc r of

t , 39 6 F. 3d 53 0, 53 5 ( 3d Ci r . 20 05 ) ( c i t i ng I N S v. El i a s - Zac a r i a s , 50 2 U. S. 4 7 8 , 4 8 3 -84 (19 9 2 )). I n thi s cas e, w e bel i eve thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the conc l us i on that V el i haj fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a nexus betw een hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on and hi s fea rof per s ecut i on. V el i haj cl ai m ed thathe tr avel ed t o G r eec e on hi s ow n acc or d i n J une 2000 t o i n v e s t i g a t e tr a f

f i c k i n g i n wo me n . W h i l e th e r e , Ve l i h a j i n t e r v i e we d tr a f

f i c k i n g v i c t i ms a n d lea rn e d th a t tw o m o b ste rs, w h o w e re “ su p p o rte d ” b ya S o c ialist P a rtyo f f icia l, contr ol l ed mostof the pr os t i tut es i n A thens . A ft erhe r eturned t o A l bani a and r eport ed hi s fi ndi ngs t o D emocr at i c Partyl eade r s , V el i haj w as w arned thatthe mobst er s he had id e n tif ie d w e re lo o k in g f

o r h im a n d w o u ld k ill h im . H e f le d to G re e c e th e n e x t d a y . A f e w m o n th s la ter , an a rticle a b o u t V e lih a j’s in v e stig a tio n a p p e a re d in th e D e m o c ra ticV el i haj al s o t es t i fi ed thatthe pol i ce a r e unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o pr ot ecthi m fr om t he 2 m obs t er s . B ut , even i f the pol i ce w er e mot i vat ed byV el i haj ’ s pol i t i cal opi ni on, as e x p l a i n e d b e l o w, c h a n g e d c o n d i t i o n s i n Al b a n i a u n d e r mi n e h i s c l a i m. 5 Par tynew s paper“N aci onal i s t i . ” The ar t i cl e named V el i haj , publ i s hed hi s phot ogr aph, and r eport ed the names of the tr aff i cker s thatV el i haj had uncove r ed. T he dayaft erthe a rticle w a s p u b lish e d , the m o b ste rs w e n t to V e lih a j’s h o u se , d e stro y e d p ro p e rty , an d to ld hi s fami l ythattheyknew he w as i n G r eec e and thattheyw er e goi ng t o fi nd hi m . Fear i ng f o r h is lif e , V e lih a j tr a v e le d to th e U n ite d S ta te s . A l though t he evi dence i ndi cat es thatthe thr eatt o V el i haj ’ s l i fe maybe r eal , i tdoes n o t c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t h e f e a rs p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l o p in io n . H e c laim e d th a t h e w ill b e h a rm e d b yth e m o b ste rs. A n d w h ile th e S o c ialist P a rty 2 o ff ici al all eg ed lysu p p o rt s the m o b sters, n o thing in the rec o rd in d icates tha t th e m o b sters ar e mot i vat ed, even pa r t i al l y , byV el i haj ’ s m ember s hi p i n the D emocr at i c Partyorbyt he fa ct th at D em o cra ti c P artylead ers d issem inated the d etail s o f h is i n v esti g ati o n . R athe r, a c c o rd in g to V e lih a

j, th e m o b ste rs s e e k to h a rm h im so lelyb e c a u se o f h is e f f o rts to e x p o se th e ir id e n tit ies . In a d d iti o n , V e lih a j’s trip to G re e c e w a s n o t re late d to h is m em bershi p in the D em ocrat i c P arty . Inst ead, he w ent of his ow n v oli t i on becau se “s om ebody. . . had t o do s om ethi ng t o s t op [the tr aff i cki ng] . ” B eca us e ther e i s no ind icati o n that the m o b sters are se ek ing an ything o ther tha n p ri v ate rev en g e f o r V eli h aj’s expos ur e of thei ri dent i t i es , w e mustconcl ude thathe has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a nexus t o a pr ot ect ed gr ound.W e not e the r el at i vel yl ow thr es hol d r epr es ent ed bythe “s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” 3 s t andar d. O uracc ept ance of the B oar d’ s concl us i on, bas ed on thats t andar d, does not m ean thatw e t ake l i ght l ythe fe arthatV el i haj has expr es s ed. W e r ej ectV el i haj ’ s cont ent i on thatthe B I A err ed byt aki ng admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of 4 the C ountryR eport s w i thoutpr ovi di ng hi m w i th an opportuni tyt o r es pond. A l though he ar gued bef

or e the B I A thatthe I J s houl d have c ont i nued the pr ocee di ngs unt i l the publ i cat i on of up- t o- dat e C ount r yR eport s , once thos e R eport s w er e i s s ued V el i haj fai l ed to e x p la in h o w th e ya f

f e c te d h is c a s e . 6 E v e n if V e lih a j co u ld e sta b lish a lin k b e tw e e n h is f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n a n d h is p o lit ica l o p in io n , su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e c o n c lu sio n th a t co n d iti o n s in A lb a n ia have c hanged s o as t o m ake hi s fea rno l ongerobj ect i vel yr eas onabl e on pol i t i cal gr ounds . T he B I A w as perm i t t ed t o t ake a dm i ni s tr at i ve not i ce of the D epart m entof 3 St at e C ountr yR eport s for2005 and 2006, s ee 8 C. F. R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i v) , w hi ch ind icated that the D em o cra ti c P artyw as v ict o ri o u s in the 2 0 0 5 elec ti o n s, that there w ere no r eport s of pol i ce i nvol vementi n tr aff i cki ng, thatpr os ecut i on of tr aff i cker s had i m pr oved, and thatthe A l bani an governm enthad t aken s ubs t ant i al s t eps t o devel op a w i tnes s pr ot ect i on pr ogr am. I n l i ghtof thes e cha nged countrycondi t i ons , the B oar d w as 4 w ith in it s d iscreti o n to co n clud e tha t V eli h aj do es n o t hav e a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rs e c u tio n . B eca us e V el i haj fai l ed t o s at i s fythe l ow ers t atut orybur den of pr oof r equi r ed for as y l um , he al s o nece s s ar i l yfai l ed t o s at i s fythe cl earpr obabi l i tys t andar d forw i thhol di ng o f re m o v a l. S e e A m b a rt s o u m ia n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 5 , 8 8 -8 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). M or eover , V el i haj fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be t or tur ed7

u p o n h is re tu rn to A lb a n ia . S e e 8 C .F .R . § § 2 0 8 .1 6 , 2 0 8 .1 8 . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew . W e do s o w i th the re q u e st th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t co n sid e r w h e th e r h u m a n itaria n p a ro le f o r V e lih a j is p o ss ib le i n the U ni t ed St at es orw hetherther e ca n be coor di nat i on w i th the A l bani an governm ent f o r V e lih a j’s in c lu sio n in its w itn e ss p ro tec tio n p ro g ra m sh o u ld h e re q u e st it.