2006 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

1-23-2006 

# C au shi 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4506

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a nova 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 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C aushi v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1663. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1663P 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 os . 04- 4506 & 05- 3151

R O B E R T C A U S H I,

Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

O n A ppeal fr om an O r derent er ed by T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls N o. A 78- 821- 176

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember15, 2005H onor abl e Loui s H

. Pol l ak, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge * forthe East ern D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge

* ( Fi l ed J anuary23, 2006)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge R ober tC aus hi pet i t i ons fo rr evi ew of a de ci s i on of the B o a r d o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r eopen a nd r emand hi s cas e t o t he i m m i gr at i on j udge (“ I J ”) and aff i r m i ng t he I J ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on forasy l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval as w el l as hi s req u est forr el i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture ( “C A T ” ). C aushi al so pet i t i ons forr evi ew o f a l at erB I A deci s i on deny i ng another m ot i on t o r eopen. T hes e pet i t i ons have be en cons ol i dat ed for re v ie w u n d e r I m m ig ra tio n a n d N a t i o n a lity A c t § 2 4 2 (b )( 6 ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(6 ) (“ [ A ]n yre v iew so u g h t o f a m o tio n to r eopen orr econs i der[an] or ders hal l be cons ol i dated w it h t he r evi ew of the or der

. ”)

. Fort he r eas ons st at ed bel ow , w e gr ant t he fi r s tpet i t i on and denyt he s econd.A s o f M arch 1, 20 03 t he I N S ceased t o exi st , and its 1 funct i ons w ere t r ans ferr ed t o t he D epart m entof H om el and S e c u ri ty. S e e 6 U .S .C . § 2 7 1

. 3

I . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory A

. B ackgr ound
Ca u s h i i s a y o u n g ma n who i s a n a t i v e a n d c i t i zen of A l bani a. H e arr i ved i n t hi s countr y on Sept ember 19, 2000 and admi t t ed t o an i m m i gr at i on i ns pect or t hat he w as u sing a fake U .S . p a ss p o rt. I n O ct ober2000 t he I m m i gr at i on and N a tu ra liza tio n S e rv ice (“ IN S ” ) se rv e d h im w ith a n o tice to 1 a p p e a r fo r rem o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. C a u sh i c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ili ty on t he bas i s of nothavi ng a val i d entr ydocumentbutappl i ed for a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C A T

. I n hi s as y lum appl i cat i on, C aus hi as s er t ed thathe had b e e n a m e m b e r of th e y o u th m o v e m e n t o f th e D e m o c ra tic P a rty of A l bani a ( “D P”) , a pol i t i cal par t y t hat oppos ed the governi ng C om m uni s t , and l at erSoci al i s t , par t i es . H e al l eged thathe had been persecut ed in A l ban i a beca us e of h i s poli t i cal beli efs. Speci fi cal l y , he cont ended t hat he and hi s br ot her

- i n- l aw , D r i t an A zune, w er e ar rested i n M ay1998 ata D P r al l y , and al t hough C aus hi w as r el eas ed af

t era few hour s , A zune w as det ai ned for t hr ee da y s . Shor t l yaft erA zune w as r el ease d fr om pol i ce cus t ody , he w as s hott o death by unknow n as s ai l ant s i n fr ontof t he pol i ce s t at i on. C aus hi al s o all eg ed thaton Sept ember13,4 1 9 9 8 h e w a s “ s e v e re lyb e a ten ” b yp o lice o f f ice rs a t a demonst r at i on i n T i r ana, A l bani a’ s capi t al , w hi l e pr ot es t i ng t he as s as s i nat i on of a D P l eade r , dur i ng w hi ch he “br oke a t oot h and s us t ai ned otheri nj ur i es . ” C aus hi s t at ed t hathe w enti nt o hi di ng a f ter th is in c id e n t. H e f

u rth e r sta ted th a t th e p o lice c a m e to h is fami l y ’ s hous e l ooki ng forhi m and poi nt ed a gun athi s father w h e n th e yle a rn e d h e w a s n o t th e re . C aus hi al s o s t at ed thathe f e a re d b e in g to rtu re d o r k ill e d in A lb a n ia o n a c c o u n t o f h is po l i t i cal act i vit i es. B

. Pr ocee di ngs B efor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge
C aus hi appea r ed befor e an I J i n A pr i l 2002. H e t es t i fi ed t hat he w as r el eased from po l i ce cust od yi n M ay19 98 becau se t he pol i ce c oul d notver i fyt hathe w as a mem berof the D P, but t h a t t h e y k n e w h i s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w wa s a “ h i g h

- p r o f i l e ” DP me mbe r . W i t h r e s p e c t t o th e i n c i d e n t i n Se p t e mbe r 1998, C au sh i t esti fied that p o li ce start ed sh o o ti n g at de m o n stra to rs w i t h m achi ne guns and then beathi m w i t h a rubbercl ub. He s t at ed he s uffe r ed numer ous i nj ur i es as a r es ul tof thi s beat i ng, i ncl u d ing a di s l ocat ed di s c i n hi s s pi ne and s ever al l ace r at i ons on h is b o dyand arm s that r equ i red st i t ches. C a u sh i w e n t in to h iding in the n o rth ern tow n o f B ajram C u rri af ter p o li ce o ff

icers c a m e to h is p a re n ts’ h o u se , p o in ted a g u n a t h is f a th e r, h it h is f a th e r o n th e h e a d w ith a g u n , an d th re a ten e d to k ill th e f a m ily i f t heyd id no tsayw here C aushi w as. H e f u rth e r sta ted th a t, al t hough hi s A l bani an pas s por tcont ai ns t w o v isa s i ndi cat i ng t r avel t o M ace doni a and Bul gar i a duri ng t he t i m e he w as5 all eg ed lyin B ajram C u rr i, th o se v isas are fra u d u lent an d w ere obt ai ned byhi s fathert o “s how [the pol i ce] t hatI had l eftt he c o u n tr ya n d c o m e b a c k .”
C a u s h i n e x t c a l l e d h i s s i s t e r , L o r e t a C a u s h i , t o t e s t i f y. L or et a, w ho al s o had an as y l um appl i cat i on pendi ng befor e the im m ig rati o n co u rt , test ifi ed that C au sh i and their fa ther w ere m em b ers o f th e D P , a n d that sh e w as f am il iar w ith “the en ti re st ory ” of w hy her brot her l eft A l ban i a, beg i nn i ng w i t h hi s arres t in M ay1 9 9 8

. L o r et a s t at ed thatt hei rbr ot her

- i n- l aw w as m u r d e r e d a f

e w d a ys a f

t e rC a u s h i w a s r e l e a s e d f r o m c u s t o d y. T o herknow l edge, C aus hi fl ed t o B aj r am C ur ri af tert he M ay 1998 i nci dentand att ended a D P r al l yi n T i r ana i n J ul y1998. She al s o t es t i fi ed t hat “[t ] he pol i ce came s ever al t im es a t our hom e t o l ook for[m y ] br ot her , ” and on one occa s i on t hey“put t he m achi ne gun on t op of m yfather ’ s head. ” She s t at ed t hatt he pol i ce s ai d t hat , i f they di d not fi nd C aus hi , t heyw oul d ki l l t he fami l yl i ke theyki l l ed herb rot her

- i n- l aw . R egar di ng t he S e p tem b e r 1 9 9 8 ra lly , L o re ta a ss e rte d th a t sh e w a s a t th e ra lly w ith h e r b ro th e r b u t d id n o t se e h im b e a ten b yp o lice . S h e d id st at e, ho w ever, t hat s om eon e from t he D P cam e t o thei r house a n d to ld th e m th a t h e r br o th e r w a s h u rt, “ th a t h e h a d c u ts i n h is bodyand hi s hand, and he ha d br oken a t oot h. ” She t est i fi ed t hatt he nextt i m e s he s aw her br ot her w as w hen she c ame t o t he U n ite d S ta te s . C aus hi al s o s ubm i t t ed a hos pi t al r epor tfr om A l bani a that i ndi cat ed he ha d been tr eat ed forcontus i ons on t he dayof the6 S ep tem b er 1 9 9 8 d em o n str ati o n an d an af fid av itfro m D r. J os ephi ne K err , a l i ce n sed pedi atr i ci an and vol unt eerfor D oct or s of the W or l d, w ho s t at ed t hat s he exami ned C aus hi and not ed s ever al s car s on hi s ches t , el bow , knees , and s houl der , as w e l l a s te n d e rn e s s in h is b a c k

. Sh e a l s o n o t e d t h a tCa u s hi beca m e “t ear ful and agi t at ed” w hen des cr i bi ng t he bea t i ngs he a lle g e d ly s u f

f e re d a t th e h a n d s o f th e A lb a n ia n p o l i c e . In ad d it ion to cli n ical ob serv ati o n s o f C au sh i’ s co n d it ion , D r. K e r r ’ s r e p o r tc o n t a i n e d a l e n g t h y a c c o u n to f h i s p a s th i s t o r y, a p p a re n tlyb a se d so lelyo n h is s tate m e n ts, a n d c o n c lu d e d w ith a n a ss e ss m e n t th a t C a u sh i “h a s a re a l a n d v a lid f e a r o f d a n g e r to hi m s el f i f he r etur ns t o A lban ia undert he pr es entgovernm ent rul e. ” C aus hi al s o s ubm i t t ed phot ogr aphs s how i ng num er ous s c a rs o n h is a rm s a n d c h e s t.
U pon t he cl os e of e vi dence , t he IJ pr ocee ded t o ques t i on C au sh i r eg ard ing the c o n ten ts of tw o n ew s arti cles the IJ obt ai ned fr om t he I nt ernet

. T he art i cl es — one fr om C N N and anotherfr om t he B B C — r ecount ed the vi ol ence s ur r oundi ng t he S eptem ber 13 , 1 9 9 8 dem on strat i on of w hich C aushi w as a par t , i ncl udi ng a r i ot by t he prot es t er s and count er at t acks byt he A l b a n i a n p o l i c e a n d m i l i t a r y. T he IJ r ead p ort i on s of t hese ar t i cl es t o C aus hi and as ked hi m i f theyadequa t el yr efl ect ed the e v e n ts o f th a t d a y , a n d C a u s h i re s p o n d e d y e s . T h e IJ d id n o t, h o w e v e r, p la c e th e a rt ic le s in th e re c o rd

. O n A pr i l 9 , 2 0 0 2 t he I J deci ded or al l yt hatC aus hi w as notel i gi bl e foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , orr el i ef unde r7 th e C A T

. T h e I J f

o u n d t h a t , wh i l e Ca u s h i b e l o n g e d t o t h e DP y out h m ovement , he w as not a “ful l

- bl ow n m ember ” and hel d no le a d e rs h ip p o s itio n . T he I J bel i eved Caushi ’ s t es t i m ony t hathe wa s a r r e s t e d a n d b r i e f l yd e t a i n e d f

o l l o wi n g t h e DP demonst r at i on i n M ay1998, and that he w as i nj ur ed dur i ng t he “extr emel yvi ol ent ” D P dem ons t r at i on i n Sept ember1998 ( dur i ng w hic h, t he I J found, bot h A l bani an pol i ce a nd demonst r at or s us ed for ce a nd “the governm entl os tcontr ol of th e c a p ita l c ity o f T ir a n a f o r a t le a s t a f

e w d a y s ” ). T he I J not ed, h o w e v e r, th a t th e h o sp ital re p o rt su b m itt e d b yC a u sh i sa id n o th in g a b o u t h i m h a v in g s u f f e re d c u ts

. T h e IJ a lso lar g e ly di s count ed D r . K err ’ s r epor tbeca us e, al t hough t he doct or “appe ar [ed] t o be w el l i nt ent i oned, ” heraff i davi tw as m os t l y“a re c itatio n o f th e re sp o n d e n t’s c laim , an d e v e n a p lea f o r th e tru th of the fa ct s conce r ni ng the cl ai m , ” and he r“ul t i m at e medi cal e v a lu a tio n o f

th e r e sp o n d e n t ap p e a r[ e d ] . . . les s c re d ib le b ec au se o f the sev en p ag es o f p rev iou s stat em en t[s] b yD r. K err conce r ni ng t he r es pondent ’ s as y l um cl ai m , compar ed t o oneand- a- hal f page s of eva l uat i on of the r es pondent ’ s m edi cal co ndi t i on. ” Th e I J t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h Ca us hi had s car s on hi s ches t , el bow , and knee s , D r. K errw as i n no p o s itio n t o e x p l a i n w h e re th e yc a m e f ro m . T he I J al s o faul t ed D r . K errforr epor t ing thatt he demonstr at i on occurr ed on Sept ember14, 1998, w hen i n fac ti toccurr ed on Sept ember13.
A s forL or et a C aus hi ’ s t es t i m ony , t h e IJ found he r“not

. . . atal l cr edi bl e. ” T he IJ comm ent ed t hat s he appear ed t o have

“ a se lec tiv e m e m o ry ” b e c a u se “ w h e n sh e th o u g h t th e a n sw e rs to8 cert ai n q uest i on s w ou l d b e helpful, she gav e speci fi c answ ers , and othert i m es , s he di d not ans w er ques t i ons acc ur at el y . ” The I J di d notgi ve anyexampl es i n s uppor t of t hi s concl us i on. T he IJ f u rth e r f o u n d th a t C a u sh i’s te stim o n yth a t h e h a d g o n e in to hi di n g in B aj r am C ur r i w as notcr edi bl e bec aus e hi s A l bani an pas s por ti ndi cat ed tr i ps t o M ace doni a and Bul gar i a dur i ng t hat t i m e, and al t hough C aus hi t es t i fi ed that hi s fatherfal s el ypl ace d t he vi s a s t amps i n hi s pas s por t , he di d not pr ovi de anyi ndi cat i on w h yh is fathe r w o u ld h av e d o n e so . Fi nal l y , t he I J found that C aus hi ’s f

athe r , “w ho had bee n a ful l

- bl ow n m emberof the D emocr at i c Par t yform anyy ear s , ” re m ained i n A l bani a and th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t h e su f f e re d p e rse c u tio n a s a re su lt. T h e IJ t her efor e conc l uded thatt he “i s ol at ed i nci dent s ” of vi ol ence C aus hi s uffe r ed di d notamount t o p a s tper s ecut i on, and t her e w as no i ndi cat i on t h at h e w o ul d be per s ecut ed i f he re tu rn e d to A lb a n ia

. T he I J t her efor e deni ed hi s appl i cat i on for a s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rt h e CA T.
C

. P roc ee d ing s B ef

o re the B IA
C au sh i app ea led t o th e B IA

. H e c o n tend ed that the IJ i g n o r e d t h e e v i d e n c e t h a th i s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w a n d f e l l o w DP m ember , D r i t an A zune, w as m ur der ed, and t hat “[t ] he pre sent countr ycondi t i ons i n A l bani a ar e dange r ous and uns t abl e” b e c a u s e th e S o c ia lis t P a rt y re m a in e d in p o w e r. C aushi al so asse rt ed that su b stan ti al ev iden ce d id n o t sup p o rtthe IJ’s concl us i on t hathi s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s i nj ur i es w as exagge r at ed, and t hat t he I J err ed i n concl udi ng t hatt he bea t i ngs9 he s us t ai ned att he hands o f pol i ce w er e s i m pl ya r es ul tof aggre s s i ve pol i ci ng i n a r i ots i tuat i on and notper s ecut i on. C aus hi al s o fa u lt ed the I J forr el y i ng on new s r epor t s fr om t he I nt ernett hatw er e notpar tof the r ecor d.
W hi l e hi s appea l w as pendi ng befor e t he B I A , C aus hi fi l ed a m o ti o n to r eopen s eeki ng a r emand t o t he I J i n l i ghtof new l yunco v ere d evi dence — t o w i t , t hathi s s i s t erL or et a had b e e n g ra n te d a sy lu m in a se p a ra te p ro c e e d in g a f ter h is app l i cat i on w as denied. C aushi co ntended t hat Lo ret a’s success in o b tai ni ng as y l um undercu t th e IJ’s d eterm ination that L o reta’s te s tim o n yin h is c a s e w a s n o t c re d ib le

. T he B IA d eni ed pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen on N o v e m b er 8 , 2 0 0 4 , an d af firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n . T h e B IA concl uded that C aus hi had notpr ovi ded anyevi dence r egar di ng the b asis o n w h ich L o reta w as g ran ted a sy lum , an d there fo re t her e w as no evi dence t hat “the fact s i n [her ] cl ai m w er e s i m i l ar t o hi s . ” T he B I A al s o hel d t hat t he I J ’ s u n d erl y i ng det erm i nat i on t hatC aus hi had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h ev i dence of per s ecut i on w as s uppor t ed byt he r ecord , st at i ng t hat“the d e ten tio n a n d m istre a tm e n t o f [ C a u sh i] in th e c o u rse o f c iv il di s turbance s i n 1 9 9 8 does notcons t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on on acc ou n t of pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” C aus hi pet i t i oned ourC our tfor r evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on.10 W hi l e hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew w as pendi ng, C aus hi fi l ed a n o th e r m o tio n to re o p e n w ith th e B I A

. H e c o n ten d e d th a t, alth o u g h there w as n o tr an script of the IJ’s d ec isi o n in L o reta’s cas e, heras y l um appl i cat i on r evea l ed thathercl ai m s “s tem [] di r ect l yfr om [m y ] act i vi t i es . ” C aus hi i ndi cat ed thathi s s i s t er had bee n r aped byt he p o li ce w ho came t o t hei rhom e l ooki ng forhi m , an i nci dentL or et a had notr evea l ed pr i ort o hi s hear i ng b e c a u se sh e w a s a sh a m e d a n d su f f e re d f ro m p o st-tra u m a tic s tr e s s d is o rd e r. C aus hi cont ended tha t L or et a w as gr ant ed as y l um d u e to herbei ng “bea t en and r aped be caus e the au tho ri tie s w ere u n ab le t o loca te [m e] a t th eir ho m e. H ad [I] b ee n h o m e, she w o u ld m o st lik elyh av e b ee n left alon e a n d [I] w oul d have be en harm ed orki l l ed. ” C aus hi t hus ar gued thatt he r a p e a n d p o s t

- t r a u ma t i c s t r e s s d i s o r d e r , c o u p l e d wi t h t h e fa ct th a t an o th e r IJ f

o u n d L o re ta c re d ib le, c o n stitu ted n e w ly avai l abl e evi dence th at si g n ifi ca n tl yu n d erc u t th e IJ’s co n clus i on in h is case that L o reta h ad a “ selec ti v e m em o ry ” a n d there fo re w a s n o t c re d ib le

. O n Ju n e 1 , 2 0 0 5 th e B IA d e n ied a s w e ll th is m o tio n to r eopen. It stat ed thatL or et a’ s as y l um appl i cat i on gave no ind icati o n o f th e actu al reaso n s w h ysh e w as g ran ted a sy lum

. In t he abs ence of the I J ’ s or al deci s i on “oranyot herobj ect i ve evi dence r egar di ng t he s peci fi cs of t he basi s of the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s gr antof hi s s i s t er ’ s as y l um cl ai m , ” the B I A concl uded t hati t w as unabl e t o det erm i ne “w hethert her e i s a s uffi ci ent n exus betw een the fa ct s i n [C aus hi ’ s ] cas e and the fa ct s upon w h ic h th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e g ra n t e d h is s is te r a s y lu m .”11 M o reo v er, th e B IA d eterm ined that the e v iden ce o f L o reta’s r ape a nd pos t

- t r aumat i c s t r es s di s or derw as avai l abl e t o C aus hi att he t i m e o f h is h ear i ng beca us e Lore t a had be en s eei ng a ps y chother api s tfornear l yfourm ont hs and ha d d isc l os ed the r el evanti nfor m at i on t o herdoct or . I tt her efor e conc l ud ed t hat L or et a “c oul d have r ai s ed the al l eged f actt hats he w as r aped, asham ed o f her rape, and suffered from po st -traum at i c stres s d isord er e ith e r b ef

o re the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e [ in h er b roth er’s cas e] ori n [hi s ] N ot i ce of A ppeal [t o the B I A ]

. ” C aus hi p e t i t i on ed our C ou rt for revi ew of the B IA ’s den i al o f th is m ot i on t o r eopen. W e consol i dat ed C aus hi ’ s pet i t i ons pur s uant to 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(6 ) .

D

. Pet i t i ons forR evi ew C aus hi ’ s pet i t i o ns forr evi ew al l ege e r r oron fi ve gr ounds

. H i s fi r s tpet i t i on al l eges t hat t he B I A err ed i n fi ndi ng t hats ubs t ant i a l e v i d e n c e s uppor t ed the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hathe had n o t been pe r s ecut ed orhad a w el l

- founded f earof p e rse c u tio n , a n d th a t th e B IA e rre d in n o t re m a n d in g h is c a se to t he I J i n l igh tof hi s s i s t er ’ s s ubs equents ucce s s i n gai ni ng as y l um . H i s s econd pe t i t i o n (w hi ch l ar gel ys ubs um es t he s econd c l ai m of err o ri n hi s fi r s tpet i t i on) cont ends t hatt he B I A ’ s concl us i on t hathe di d notpr ove thatL or et a’ s as y l um cl ai m w as fac tual l y r el at ed t o hi s ow n w as err or ; t hat t h e B IA fur thererr ed i n hol di ng t hatthe evide n ce of Lore t a’ s r ape w as a v a ilab le to C a u sh i p rio r to h is h e a rin g ; an d th a t, in a n ye v e n t, t he g rantof asy l um t o L oret a and her post -traum at i c stres sC aushi has no t a pp eal ed the I J’ s denial of h i s r equ est 2 f o r r e lie f u n d e r t h e C A T

. 12 d isord er a re n ew lyav ailab le ev iden ce that co n tr ad ictthe IJ’s concl us i on t hats he w as n o tcr edi bl e. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e gr antt he fi r s tpet i t i on and denyt he s econd. 2

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e have j ur i s di ct ion o verC aus hi ’ s pet i t i ons under 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 , w h ich g ra n ts f e d e ra l co u rt s o f

a p p e a ls j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal orde rs o f t he B I A

. W e r evi ew t he B IA ’s a f

f irm a n c e o f a n IJ’ s fa c tu a l f in d in g s, in c lu d in g its det erm i nat i on of w hether an al i en w as s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on or has a w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecut ion , u ndera s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See, e. g. , Shar dar v. A s hcr oft , 382 F. 3d 318, 3 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e B IA ’s a f f irm a n c e o f

th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons i s al s o r evi ew ed undert hi s s t andar d. See C ao v. A tt’yG e n ., 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“T h e c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n , li k e a ll IJ f a c tu a l f in d in g s, is s u b

je c t to s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r e v i e w. ” )

. I n c o n d u c t i n g t h i s a n a l y s i s we cons i derthe recor d as a w hol e and s hal l r ever s e onl yi f “‘ [a] r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he c o n t r a r y . ’ ” S h a r d a r , 3 8 2 F

. 3 d a t 32 3 ( q u o t i n g 8 U. S

. C. § 1 25 2(b)( 4)( B ))

. W e revi ew t he B IA ’s den i al of a m o tio n to r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on, L u v. A s hcrof t, 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 01) , and r evi ew i t s under l y i ng fac tual concl us i ons r el at ed t o t he mot i on fo r s ubs t ant i al evi dence

.Inso fa r as C au sh i’ s first p eti ti o n ch all en g es th e B IA ’s 3 deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen and r emand, w e addr es s t hati s s ue in P a rt IV b e lo w . 13 Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F

. 3 d 166, 170 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. T he B IA ’s d e n ial o f

a m o tio n to re o p e n m a yo n lyb e re v e rse d if it i s “arbi t r ary , ir rati o nal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” I d. at174 ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).

I I I . F i rs t P et i t i on f

or R evi ew W e b eg in w ith C au sh i’ s first p e tit ion fo r rev iew

. In 3 deci di ng an al i en’ s as y l um appl i cat i on, an IJ m us tcons i dert he compl et e r ecor d, anal y zi ng t he evi dence bot h pr o and con. See G ao v. A sh cro ft, 299 F. 3d 266, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. A l t hough o u r re v iew o f a n I J’s c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s is d e f e re n tial, “thatdefe rence i s expr es s l ycondi t i oned on s uppor ti n t he r ecor d, and [d] efe r ence i s notdue w h ere fi ndi ngs and concl us i ons ar e base d on i nfer ence s orpr es um pt i ons t hatar e not r eas onabl ygr ounded i n t he r ecor d. ” D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc) ( ci t at i on an d int ernal qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed; al t erat i on i n o ri ginal ). A n IJ m ust su p p o rt h is f

a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s w ith “ s p e c if ic, c o g e n t” r eas ons s uch thathi s concl us i ons “fl ow i n a r eas oned w ayfr om th e e v id e n c e o f

re c o rd a n d a re [ n o t] a rb itrar ya n d c o n jec tu ra l in natur e. ” I d. at250. F ail u r e t o do s o “does notpas s m us t er undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence rubr i c. ” I d. at254 ( ci t i ng M u lang a v . A sh cro ft, 3 4 9 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 )).14 A

. I J ’ s Factual C oncl us i ons R el at ed t o Per s ecut i on W e have s ever al pr obl ems w it h t he I J ’ s fac tual con cl usi on s i n thi s case. F i rs t , h e fou nd t hat the ad verse tre a tm e n t C a u sh i cla im e d to h a v e su f f e re d d id n o t am o u n t to p ast p erse cu ti o n an d d id n o t create a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e r s e c u t i o n . I n r e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , t h e I J d i d n o te ven m ent i on t he t es t i m onyt hatC aus hi ’ s br ot her

- i n- l aw , w i t h w hom C a u sh i w a s a rre ste d a t a D P ra ll y i n M a y1 9 9 8 , w a s s h o t to death i n fr ontof the pol i ce st at i on m i nut es aft erbei ng r el eas ed fr om cus t ody , and the fur t her t es t i m ony of C aus hi and hi s s i s t er t hatpol i ce of

fi ce r s es s ent i al l ycl ai m ed r es pons i bi l i t yfort he mu r d e rwh e n t h e yr a i d e d t h e Ca u s h i s ’ h o u s e l o o k i n g f o rh i m. T he I J al s o bel i eved thatC aus hi had bee n beat en att he Sept ember1998 demonst r at i on, butr ej ect ed hi s t es t i m onyt hat h e wa s a l s o s l a s h e d b e c a u s e , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t Ca u s h i ’ s a r ms a n d to rso a re c o v e re d w ith sc a rs, th e re p o rt f ro m th e h o sp ital in A l bani a w her e he w as t aken f ol l ow i ng t he bea t i ng di d not m ent i on any cut s . T he I J di d notaddr es s C aus hi ’ s expl anat i on fo r th is o m issi o n (i

. e., that m ed ical do cu m en ts i n A lban ia “a re n o t . . . v e ryc lea r in w h a t th e ysta te” ) o r h is te stim o n yth a t, i n an yev en t, h is c u ts w ere tr ea ted b ya p ri v ate d o ctor a t his si ster’s h o m e a n d n o t a t th e h o s p ita l. See, e. g. , C ampos- S anchez v. IN S , 1 6 4 F .3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 0 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (re q u irin g th e B IA to cons i der an al i en’ s expl anat i ons for anyper cei ved inco n sist en cies i n h is test im o n y b ef o re de cidin g u p o n the a li en ’s cre d ibil ity ). T h e IJ a lso d id n o t add ress the f a c t th a t D r. K err not ed thatC aushi h ad sever al “w el l heal ed” s car s on hi s bodyA lth o u g h w e a g ree w ith the IJ’s d ec isi o n to rejec t D r. 4 K err ’ s i nappr opr i at e concl us i ons r egar di ng C aus hi ’ s fac tual backgr ound, w e do notbel i eve t h is n ece s s ar i l yr ender s her m edi cal exami nat i o n notcr edi bl e, es peci al l ys i nce Caushi pr ovi ded phot ogr aphs of hi s s car s s o t hat t he IJ coul d i ns pectt he p h y si cal evi dence forhi m s el f. A l s o of conc ern i s t he gr eat w ei ghtt he I J gave t o t he fac t t hat D r . K errl i s t ed the dat e of the Sept ember1998 D P demonst r at i on as Sept ember14 r athert han S ep tem b er 1 3 in m ak ing h is cred ibil ityd eterm in a tio n . D r. K err ’ s err ori s , at m os t , a m i nor i ncons i s t ency t hat i s i r r el evant to th e su b sta n c e o f C a u sh i’s a sy lu m c laim , a n d th e re f o re sh o u ld not for m a bas i s for an adver s e cr edi bi l i t y det erm i nat ion

. See B e ri s h a j v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 8 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).

15 an d p rosth eti c f

ron t t ee th, eve n tho u g h b o th o b serv ati o n s are con si st ent w i t h C aushi’ s descr i pti on of h i s i njur i es. 4
W e a re a lso p u z z led b y th e IJ’ s fin d in g th a t C a u sh i “d id not hi ng t hatw oul d br i ng hi m s el f t o t he att ent i on of the author i t i es . ” The I J s uppor t ed thi s concl u sion bynot i ng t hat C a u sh i “w a s a m e m b e r o f th e y o u th b ra n c h o f th e D e m o c ra tic P a rty , [a n d ] w a s n o t a f

u ll-b lo w n m e m b e r.” T h e IJ’ s f in d in g is atodds w i t h hi s det erm i nat i on t hatC aus hi ’ s fatherw as an ac t i ve m embe rof the D P and t hatC aus hi w as arr es t ed i n M ay1998 beca us e of hi s aff

i l i ati o n w i t h t hatpar t y . M or eover , t he concl us i on i s bel i ed by the fac t( unm ent i oned byt he I J ) t hat C aus hi ’ s br ot her

- i n- l aw w as a hi gh- l evel D P m emberw ho w as m ur der ed i m m edi at el yaft erhe w as r el eas ed fr om pol i ce cus t od y , an d t he unr ebut t ed t es t i m onyof C aus hi and hi s s i s t er16 t hatt he pol i ce c ame t o t hei r hous e l ooki ng for hi m and as s aul t ed hi s fami l ys hor t l yaft erhi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he Sept ember1998 d em o n str ati o n at w h ich h e w as b ea ten. In sh o rt , the IJ’s concl us i on that C aus hi w as s om ehow unknow n t o t he pol i ce (d e sp ite th e f

a c t h is f a m ilyw a s w e ll k n o w n a n d C a u sh i h im se lf h a d b e e n a rr e s te d ) i s u n s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd

. W e bel i eve thes e omi s s i ons fr o m t he I J ’ s fac tual d isc u ss io n a re sig n if

ica n t b e c a u se th e o m itt e d e v id e n c e ten d s to es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on. W e have defi ned per s ec u ti on as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s e v e r e t h a t t h e y c o n s t i tu t e a t h r e a tt o l i f e o rf r e e d o m. ” Se e Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 167 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. T he conduc tC aus hi al l eges

— t he murde rof hi s br ot her

- i n- l aw , t he bea t ing and al l eged s l a s h i n g a tt h e h a n d s o f p o l i c e , t h e t h r e a t s a g a i n s th i s f a m i l y, and the vi ol ence , i nt i m i dat i on, and as s as s i nat i ons di r ect ed att he D P — tend s to e stab li sh a thre at t o li fe a n d f re e d o m . T h e IJ’s fai l ure t o gi ve speci fi c, cog ent reas on s for rej ect in g t hese a lleg a tio n s in lig h t o f a ll o f th e re c o rd e v id e n c e f a lls s i gni fi cant l ys hor tof the r equi r ementt hathi s fac tual fi ndi ngs be s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. B . IJ’s D e ter m in a tio n T h a t L o re ta C a u sh i W a s N o t C re d ib le
N ex t, w e c o n side r th e IJ ’s d eterm ination that C au sh i’ s sis ter L o re ta w a s “ n o t .

. . at a ll cre d ib le” w h e n sh e tes tifie d in su p p o rto f h er b roth er’s all eg ati o n s o f p erse cu ti o n . T h e IJ’s17 ent i r e ana l y s i s of her t es t i m ony i s as fol l ow s : “I di d notfi nd her t es t i m onyatal l cr edi bl e. I thoughttha ts he had a s el ect i ve m em o ry . W hen s he thoughtt he ans w er s t o cert ai n ques t i ons w ou l d b e he l pf

ul , s he ga ve s pe c i fi c a ns w e r s , a nd othe rt i m es, s he di d notans w erques t i ons acc ur at el y . ” T he I J di d notpoi nt t o anys peci fi c i ns t ance s i n w hi ch Lore t a gave i nacc ur at e or s el ect i ve t es t i m ony ; i ndeed, he di d notpr ovi de anyexpl anat i on o f h o w h e a rriv e d a t th is c o n c lu s io n . A s w e sta ted a b o v e , itis w e ll es tab lish e d th a t an IJ m u st s u p p o rt h is c re d ib ili ty d e t e r mi n a t i o n s wi t h r e c o r d e v i d e n c e a n d p r o v i d e “ s p e c i fi c, c o g e n t” re a so n s f

o r h is c o n c lu sio n s s u f

f icie n t to d e m o n stra te t hatt heyar e not“arbi t r aryand conj ectur al i n natur e. ” D i a, 353 F

. 3 d at 25 0

. B yn o t ci ti n g a s in g le i n stan ce in w h ich L o reta’s tes tim o n yw a s in a c c u ra te o r se lec tiv e , the IJ d id n o t sa tisf yth is s ta n d a rd

. M o reo v er, ou r rev iew o f L o reta’s t esti m o n yrev ea ls ve ry f e w in sta n c e s in w h ich h e r sta tem e n ts w e re d e m o n stra b ly i nacc ur at e, vague, ornonr es pons i ve. Fort he mostp ar t , her t es t i m onyw as cl ear an d cons i s t ent , and corr obor at ed her br ot her ’ s acc ount

. W e not e onl y t hr ee i ns t ance s w her e the j udge exp res sed dis sat i sfact i on w i t h L oret a’s res po nsi ven ess:

[I J , r egar di ng t he M ay1998 d em o n str ati o n :] D id y o u see R o b ert and y ourbr ot her

- i n- l aw bei ng arr es t ed?18 [Lore t a: ] N o. [I J : ] W hen R ober tw as r el eas ed, he t ol d y ou he had be en a rr e s te d ? M s . C a u s h i, I ’m s o rr y , I j u s twan ty o u t o a n s wert he ques t i ons as di r ect l yas pos s i bl e. W hen R ober tw as r el eas ed, di d he t el l y ou he had be en arr es t ed? [L oret a: ] Y es. [ IJ :] H o w lo n g d id h e tell y ou he had be en det ai ned? [Lore t a: ] H e t ol d m e he w as d e ta in e d f

o r l ik e th re e h o u rs .

. . . [Lore t a, r egar di ng another d em o n str ati o n in Ju ly1 9 9 8 :] I r e m e m b e rt h a t o n t h e 4 t h o f J u l y, m y b r o th e r p a rticip a ted [ i]n a ra lly o f th e D em o cra ti c P arty , an d there w as an as s as s i nat i on fr om t he S o c i a l i s tP a r t y t h a td a y. [IJ:] W h at y ea r?19 [Lore t a: ] ‘ 98. A bout150 bull et s w er e s hot , and A zem H aj dar i [a D P l eade r ] w as t her e, and the pol i ce s hot overt he peopl e. [I J : ] W hatw as , w hat w as t he dat e aga i n? [ L o r e t a : ] I tw a s 4 t h o f

J u l y. [IJ : ] J uly4, 19 98 ? M s. C a us hi , y ou ha ve t o tr yt o j ust ans w er t he ques t i on as di r ect lyas p o ssible. T h e inc iden t y o u ’re t al ki ng aboutoccurr ed on Jul y4, 1998, y es orno? [L oret a: ] Y es. [IJ:] W as y o u r b ro ther h u rt o n J u l y4 , 1 9 9 8 , o ra r r e s t e d , y our b ro th e r, R o b e rt? [L o reta:] N o , n o t hi ng h a p p e n e d

.

. . . [I J , r egar di ng the poli ce20 s ea rch fo r C au sh i ath is fam il y ’s hous e: ] D i d t he pol i ce s ay w hyt hey w an ted to tal k to y o u r bro ther, R ober t ? Y es orno. [L oret a: ] Y es. [ I J : ] W h a td i d t h e y s a y? W h yd id th e ysa yth e yw a n ted to talk to R o b e rt? [Lore t a: ] B eca us e the pol i ce i n A l ba n i a , t h e yk n e w t h a tmy b ro th e r w a s a m e m b e r o f th e Y o u th F o ru m f o r[ t h e ] D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y, a n d h e sup p o rt[ e d ] A z e m H a jd a ri in t he D emocr at i c Par t y , s o t heyt r i ed th e b e st th e yc o u ld to sto p th is, th is w ave o f new D em ocrat s. [I J : ] Is thatw hatt he pol i ce said ? I s t hatw hatt heys ai d w hen t heycame t o y ourhous e sev er al t i m es? [Lore t a: ] N o, t heydi dn’ ts ay t hat , but t hey s ai d t o m y fathert hat w e w anty ours on.21 [I J : ] D i d t heys ay , di d t hey s ay— l i s t en t o m y w or ds

. D i d t hey s ay w hy t heyw ant ed t o t al k t o y our b roth er? [ L o re ta :] T h e yn e v e r w o u ld t el l us t he r eas on w hyt heyw ant ed t o tal k to m ybrot her, bu t I r emem bert hem t el l i ng t o m yfather in f ro n t o f m e a n d m ym o th e r th a t if y ou do n’tt el l us w here y ou r son is , th e n w e w ill f

in d h im a n d w e w ill ki l l hi m t he s am e w ayw e ki l l ed y o u rb r o t h e r - i n - l a w. W ith re sp e c t to th e e x c h a n g e s re late d to th e M a y a n d Ju ly demonst r at i ons , w e ar e perpl exed by the I J ’ s appar ent di s pl eas ur e w i t h L or et a’ s r es pons es beca us e the tr ans cr i pt reveal s that Lo ret a dir ect l yansw ered all o f t he IJ’ s quest i on s. A s fort he exc hange r egar di ng t he pol i ce of fi cer s’ s ea rch f

or C au sh i, w e a g ree that L o reta d id n o t dir ec tl yan sw er the IJ’s q u e stio n , “W h yd id [ th e p o lice ] sa yth e yw a n ted to talk to R o b ert? ”, bu t r athe r ga v e h er v iew o f w h ythe p o li ce w ere i nt er es t ed i n herbr ot her

. W h en the IJ r epea t ed hi s ques t i on, how ever , L or et a d ir ec t l yans w er ed i tand s t at ed thatt he pol i ce n e v e r sa id w h yth e yw e re lo o k in g f o r h e r b r o th e r. E sp e c ially sin c e L o re ta w a s te stif

y in g v ia a n in ter p re ter , an d th e re f o re it i s uns urpr i s i ng t hats om e ques t i ons m ayhave be en mi s under s t ood22 and r epet i t i ons m ayhave be en nec es s ary , w e do notbel i eve L oret a’s fai l ure t o answ er di rect l yt he IJ’ s quest i on on t he fir st t r yi s s uffi ci entfor a r eas onabl e adj udi cat ort o concl ude thats he w as notcr edi bl e. T he G overnm entpl ace s part i cul ar r el i ance on another excha nge thatoccurr ed dur i ng cr os s - exami n at i on as evi dence t hatL or et a’ s t es t i m onyw as evas i ve and i nacc ur at e:

[G overnm ent : ] D o, do y ou h a v e a n A lb a n ian p a ss p o rt? [Lore t a: ] Y es . T hat ’ s t he one I ’ ve tr avel ed w i t h. [G overnm en t : ] Okay

. W hen d id y o u g e t it ? [ L o re ta:] I t’s m yp a ss p o rt. [ G o v e rn m e n t:] W h e n d id y o u g e t it ? [Lore t a:] M y , m yfather obt ai ned th e pass por tform e and s om e, s om e r el at i ves of m ys i s t er m anage d t o gett he vi s a.23 [G o v ern m en t: ] O n e m o re t i m e. W hen di d y ou gett he p a ss p o rt? [ Lo r e t a : ] Th e d a t e I c a me her e, 9: 00 i n t he m or ni ng, w as t he d a yth a t I o b tain e d th e p a ss p o rt. [G overnm ent : ] H ow di d y ou g e t it ? [Lore t a: ] O n J une, J une 5. [G o v ern m en t, to the IJ: ] I do n’tkn ow ho w t o ask t hese q u e s t i o n s a n y m o r e s i m p l y. [I J , t o L or et a: ] D id y ou get t he A l bani an pas s por t w hi l e y ou w ere here i n the U nit ed S t at es? [Lore t a: ] I n A l bani a. [I J : ] D o y ou r emem bert he dat e thaty ou goty ourA l bani an p assp o rt , w h at y ea r? [L o re ta: ] I do n ’trem em b er.24 I’m so rry , I do n ’trem em b er. [IJ : ] Y o u d o n ’trem em b er — [Lore t a: ] I t ’ s [a] fi ve- y ear p a ss p o rt. It’s a f

iv e -y e a r p a s sp o rt. I d o n ’t k n o w w h e n it e x p ir e s . [ IJ:] I ’m a sk in g y o u w h e n it w as i s s ued, w haty eari tw as i s s ued t o y ou, ‘ 98, ‘ 99, 20 0 0 , 2001; w hat y ear w as t he passport i ssued to y ou? [ L o re ta:] I t’s d if f icu lt t o r emem ber w hen i t w as i s s ued, ‘ 93, ‘9 4 . I’ m n o t s u re . W e agr ee w i t h t he G overnm entt hatL or et a’s r es pons es i n t his e x change w er e noti ni t i al l yr es pons i ve t o t he ques t i ons as ked. N onethel es s , L or et a ans w ere d the ques t i ons upon r ephr as i ng byt he I J

. I n anyevent , L or et a’ s fai l ur e t o r eca l l t he p re c ise d a te o n w h ich h e r p a s s p o r t w a s is su e d is, a t b e st, t angent i al t o herbr ot her ’ s asy l um cl ai m . W e have s t at ed that “mi nori ncons i s t e n c i e s a n d mi n o ra d mi s s i ons t hatr evea l not hi ng aboutan as y l um appl i cant ’ s fea rforhi s saf etyar e notan adequa t e bas i s foran adver s e cr edi bi l i t y fi ndi ng. [R ather , ] [t ] he d is c re p a n c ie s m u s t in v o lv e th e h e a rt o f th e a s y lu m c la im .”T he R E A L I D A ct of 2005 change s t h e standa r ds 5 governi ng cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons , s t at i ng thats uch det erm i nat i on s m aybe made “w i t houtr egar d t o w hetheran i ncons i s t ency , i nacc ur acy , orfal s ehood goes t o t he heart of the a p p lica n t' s c laim .” P u b . L . 1 0 9 -1 3 , d iv . B , § 1 0 1 (a )(3 ), 1 1 9 S tat. 2 3 1 , 3 0 3 ( t o b e c o d i f

i e d a t8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i i i ) )

. We not e, how ever , t hatt hi s pr ovi s i on onl yappl i es t o al i ens w ho appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , or ot herr el i ef a ft er M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the ef

fe cti v e da te o f th e A ct. S ee id. § 1 0 1 (h)(2 ), 1 1 9 S tat . at 30 5

. S ince C au sh i app li ed fo r asy lum in Ja n u ary 2 0 0 1 , t h i s p r o v i s i o n i s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o o u rr e v i e w o f h i s c l a i m. 25 B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. W e ar e notper s uaded 5 t hat L or et a’ s fai l ur e t o r eca l l t he dat e her pas s por tw as is s ued, an d h er init ial fa il u re to a n sw er d ir ec tl ythe G o v ern m en t’ s que s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e p a s s p o r t , r e v e a l a n y t h i n g a b o u tt he c re d ib ility o f

h e r t e s tim o n yre g a rd in g h e r b ro th e r’ s tr e a tm e n t.

C

. S u m m a r y W e gr antC aus hi ’ s fi r s tpet it i on forr evi ew , vaca t e the B IA ’s N o v e m b er 8 , 2 0 0 4 o rde r i n so fa r as itaf firm ed the IJ’s or al deci s i on, and re m and t hi s cas e t o t he B I A s o t hati tcan r efe r th e c a se to th e IJ f

o r f u rth e r p r o c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. W e bas e thi s deci s i on on t w o s et s of err or s . Fi r s t , t he I J ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons r el at ed t o C aus hi ’ s el i gi bi l i t yfor a sy lu m a re n o t s u p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . A s n o ted , in26 h is oral de cisi o n the IJ n ev er m en ti o n ed that C au sh i’ s b roth eri n- l aw , a fe l l ow m emberof the D P w i t h w hom C aus hi w as arr es t ed i n M ay1998, w as m ur der ed i m m edi at el yaft erhe w as release d fro m p o li ce cu stod y . In a d d it ion , alth o u g h the IJ bel i eved Caushi ’s test i m onythathe had be en bea t en bypol i ce at a r al l yi n Sept ember1998, t he I J r ej ect ed hi s t es t i m onyt hathe had been sl ashed d espi t e t he fa ctt hat C aushi’ s ar m s and tor so ar e cove r ed w i t h s car s and he has pr os t het i c fr ontt eeth, w hi ch are co n sist en t w ith C au sh i’ s d esc ri p ti o n o f h is injuries. T h e IJ re lied o n th e f

a c t th a t th e re p o rt f

ro m th e h o sp ita l in A lb a n ia w her e C aus hi w as t aken f ol l ow i ng t he bea t i ng di d notm ent i on a n yc u ts, b u t th e IJ d id n o t m e n tio n C a u sh i’s e x p lan a tio n f o r th is om i s s i on ( i

. e., t hatm edi cal document s i n A l bani a “a r e not

. . . verycl eari n w hatt heys t at e”) or h is t es t i m onyt hat , i n any ev en t, h is cu ts w ere tr ea ted b ya p ri v ate d o ctor a t his si ster’s hom e and not att he hos pi t al

. M or eover , t he I J ’ s concl us i on t hat C aus hi “di d not hi ng t hat w oul d br i ng hi m s el f t o t he att ent i on of t he author i t i es ” beca us e he “w as a m emberof the y out h br anch o f th e D e m o c ra tic P a rty , [a n d ] w a s n o t a f u ll-b lo w n m e m b e r” is uns uppor t ed byt he r ecor d and, i ndeed, i s contr ad ict ed byt he fac tt hathi s fami l yw as w el l kno w n t o t he pol i ce be caus e of C aus hi ’ s father ’ s and br ot her

- i n- l aw ’ s act i vi t i es i n t he D P and t he fa ctt hatC aus hi hi m s el f had be en arr es t ed.
S ec o n d , the IJ’s c o n c lusion that L o reta C au sh i’ s tes tim o n ya t h e r b ro th e r’s h e a rin g w a s se lec tiv e a n d in a c c u ra te ( and ther efor e not cre di bl e) i s uns uppor t ed byanyexpl anat i on orci t at i on t o s peci fi c i n stan ces w her e hert es t i m onyw asThe G ov e r nmen tpl a c e s pa r t i c ul a rr e l i a nc e on t he U

. S. 6 St at e D epart m entPr ofi l e of A s y l um C l ai m s forA l bani a, pr oduced i n M ay 2 0 0 1 forus e byt he Execut i ve O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on R evi ew . T hi s r epor tm ak es s ever al br oad s t at ement s , i ncl udi ng t hat“[t ] her e i s vi r tual l yno evi dence t hat in d iv id u a ls a re ta rg e te d f o r m is tr e a tm e n t o n p o litic a l g ro u n d s ,” “[t ]her e i s no p ost -C om m un i stt radi t i on of ret ri bu t i on ag ai nst pol i t i cal leade r s and fe w i ns t ance s t her eof, ” and “ [t ] he G overnm en t has nei t hert he means nort he w i l l t o carr yout s y s t emat i c per s ecut i on. ” W e n o t e, ho w ever, t hat these concl us i ons ar e at o d d s w i t h t he St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2000 and 2001 C ount r yR epor t s for A l bani a ( w hi ch w e have de s cr i bed as “the ‘m o st ap p rop ri ate’ an d ‘pe rha p s b est reso u rce ’ on co u n try condi t i ons , ” A m bar t s oum ian v. A s hcr oft , 388 F. 3d 85, 89 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o ti n g L al v. IN S , 2 5 5 F

. 3 d 9 9 8 , 1 0 2 3 (9 th C ir

. 2001) ) ) , w hi ch ci t e numer ous all egat i ons of vi ol ence and 27 d ef ici en t. M o reo v er, w e c an n o t i d en ti fya sin g le i n stan ce w h ere L o reta’s t esti m o n ya b o u t ev en ts atthe h ea rto f h er b roth er’s as y l um cl ai m w as demonst r abl yi n a c c u r a t e , s e l e c t i v e , o re v a s i v e. T hus , w e c o n clud e tha t th e IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. W e ac know l edge, of cour s e, t hat t he r ecor d cont ai ns s om e evi dence t hat w ei ghs agai ns t C aus hi ’ s cr edi bi l i t y( s uch as t he fa cthi s par ent s r emai n in A l bani a ort he i ncons i s t ency betw een hi s al l eged f

l i ght t o B aj r am C ur r i and the vi s a s t amps in h is p a ss p o rt in d ica tin g tra v e l to M a c e d o n ia a n d B u lg a ria dur i ng t hatt i m e)

. W e expr es s no opi ni on on how t hi s evi dence 6i nt i m i dat i on di r ect ed at D P m ember s t hatoft en w ent u n in v e s tig a te d a n d u n p u n is h e d

. W e ar e not , t her efor e, p e r s u a d e d t h a tt h e As y l u m P r o f i l e i s p r o o f

t h a tCa u s h i ’ s c l a i ms la c k m e ri t. W e al s o not e that , al t hough an I J m ayi nt r oduce 7 evi dence i nt o t he r ecor d, s ee M ul anga, 349 F. 3d at135 ( quot i ng I n r e S

- M

- J

- , 21 I

. & N

. D ec. 722, 726 ( B

. I

. A

. 1997) ) , “[w hen] th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e re lies o n th e c o u n tryc o n d itio n s in adj udi cat i ng t he al i en’ s cas e, t he s o u rce of the I m m i gr at i on Ju d g e' s k n o w ledg e o f th e pa rt icular co u n try m u st b e m ad e p art o f th e re co rd,” S -M -J-, 2 1 I. & N

. D ec . at 72 7

. H ere , the IJ rel i ed on I nt ernetar t i cl es fr om C N N and the B B C as evi dence of t he event s t hat t ook pl ace i n T i r ana on Sept ember13, 1998. A l t hough t he I J m ayi nt r oduce e vi dence s ua s pon te, and t h e r e f o r e t h e I J ’ s r e l i a n c e o n t h e s e a r t i c l e s wa s n o t e r r o r , we agr ee w i t h C aus hi t hat t he IJ i nappr opr i at el ynegl ect ed t o pl ace the c o m p let e a rt icl es in th e re co rd. If, u p o n rem an d , the B IA w i s hes t o r el yon t hes e art i cl es oranyot herevi dence , s uch evi dence m us tbe pl ace d i n t he r ecor d. 28 s houl d i nfl uence C aus hi ’ s el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um beca us e s uch a determ i nati on m ustbe m ade by t he i m m i grat i on cou rti n the fi rs t i n s t a n c e . S e e I NS v . Ve n tu r a , 5 3 7 U. S

. 1 2 , 1 6

- 1 7 ( 2 0 0 2 )

. On r emand, t he I J m us t car eful l yexami ne the compl et e r ecor d i n a m anner cons i s t ent w i t h t hi s opi ni on and det erm i ne w hether , on b a l a n c e , t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s Ca u s h i ’ s e l i g i b i l i t yf o ra s y l u m. 729 I V . Second P et i t i on f

or R evi ew W e tur n now t o C aus hi ’ s s econd pe t i t i on forr evi ew , and co n side r his firstp eti tio n in so fa r as h e c o n tend s tha t th e B IA e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n a n d re m a n d

. A m o tio n to r eopen maybe deni ed i f the B I A det erm i nes that: ( 1) t he al i en has notes t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e fort he r el i ef s ought ; ( 2) t he al i en “has noti nt r oduced pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, m at er i al evi dence ”; or( 3) i n t he ca s e o f di s cr et i onaryr el i ef ( s uch as as y l um ) , t he al i en w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o reli ef even i f the m ot i on w as gr ant ed. IN S v. A budu, 485 U

. S. 94, 104- 05 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; S e v o i a n , 2 9 0 F

. 3 d a t1 6 9

- 7 0 ; s e e a l s o 8 C. F

. R. § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) ( “A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs sh al l notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappea r s t o t he B oar d t hatevi dence s oughtt o be offe r ed i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave been di s cover ed orpr es ent ed att he for m er hear i ng . . . . ”)

. T he B I A deni ed C aus hi ’ s m ot i ons t o r eopen be caus e h e d id not prove a nex us betw een hi s cl ai m and L oret a’s

. T he B IA a l so deni ed the fi r s tm ot i on beca us e C aus hi di d n otaddr es s t he r eas ons w hyt he I J i n hi s cas e found Lor et a not c red ibl e, and deni ed the s econd mot i on beca use i tdi d notpr es entany evi dence t hatw as not avai l abl e t o hi m att he t i m e of hi s hear i ng. W e d o n o t b e liev e th e B IA a b u se d it s d isc re tio n in deny i ng t hes e m ot i ons . I n hi s fi r s t m ot i on t o r eopen, w hi ch soug ht a r em and t o the I J in l i gh tof L oret a’s subsequ ent s uccess i n obt ai ni ng as y lum , C aus hi di d notdi s cus s anyof the r eas ons w hyL oret a w as grant ed asy l um and t herefore fai l ed to est abli sh30 t hathers ubs equent cas e had anybear i ng on t he I J ’ s concl us i on in C a u sh i’s c a se th a t L o re ta lac k e d c re d ib ili ty . In d e e d , the o n ly evi dence acc om pany i ng C aus hi ’ s m ot i on w as an aff i davi tfr om hi s at t or neys t at i ng concl u so ri l yt hatL or et a’ s gr antof as y l um “cl ear l y contr adi ct s t he fi ndi ng of the otherI m m i gr at i on J udge w ho di d notfi nd hert o b e cr edi bl e. ” The m ot i on offe r ed no e v i d e n c e t h a tL o r e t a o b t a i n e d a s y l u m b a s e d o n t h e s a me test im o n ysh e g av e b ef

o re the IJ i n C au sh i’ s ca se; i n d ee d , there w as no i ndi cat i on w hat evert hatL or et a gai n ed asy l um for rea so n s tha t w ere at all related to h er b roth er’s claim

. T h e B IA r i ght l y concl uded thatt he mer e fa ctL or et a w as gr ant ed as y l um aft ert es t i fy i ng atherbr ot her ’ s hear i ng w as not , w i t houtm or e, evi dence t hatt he I J ’ s adver s e c r edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on i n her b ro th e r’ s c a s e w a s e rr o n e o u s . C aus hi at t empt ed t o r emedyt hes e def ect s i n hi s s econd m o tio n to re o p e n . H e a ttac h e d se v e ra l e x h ib its , inc lu d in g h is s i s t er ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on; an aff i davi t fr om hi s s i s t er ’ s doct or s t at i ng t h at L o ret a has pos t

- t r aumat i c s t r es s di s or der ; and an aff i dav i tfr om L or et a s t at i ng t hats he di d nott el l herbr ot her aboutt he r ape beca us e s he w as “as hamed and t r aumat i zed, ” and di d nott es t i fyabouti t athi s hear i ng beca us e s he w as notas ked, butw as abl e t o t es t i fyabouti tatherow n as y l um hear i ng and w as “now abl e t o t el l t he ent i r e s t or y ” and “ w oul d be m or e than w i l l i ng t o t es t i fyon R ober t ’ s behal f” i f he w as gra nt ed a ne w hear i ng.31 A

. T he R ape F i r s t , Ca u s h i c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s wh o c a me to h is f a m ily ’s h o m e lo o k in g f o r h im r a p e d L o re ta, a n d th is t end s to est abli sh t hat he and his fam i l yhav e suffered p ast per s ecut i on and have a w el l

- founded fea r of futur e per s ecut i on. W e not e, how ever , t hatC aus hi cert ai nl ykn ew aboutt he r ape w e ll i n a d v a n c e o f

h is A p ril 2 0 0 2 h e a rin g b e f o re th e IJ. H is elde r si ster, A n d o n eta Z h erk a, su b m itted an af fid av itin su p p o rt o f h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 sta tin g th a t L o re ta h a d b e e n ra p e d b y a p o lice o f f ice r w h o c a m e lo o k in g f o r C a u sh i, and C aus hi hi m s el f m ent i oned i n hi s t es t i m ony befor e the I J t hat he hea r d “fr om m y y ounges t s i s t er w ho gotr aped .

. . t hata l ot o f th ing s h ap p en ed w ith m y f a m il y . ” T h e ra p e w as th ere fo re k n o w n to C a u sh i at th e tim e o f h is he a rin g a n d th e B IA c o rre c tly det erm i ned thatt he evide nce “ coul d .

. . have be en di s cover ed or pr es ent ed at t he for m er hear i ng, ” 8 C

. F. R

. § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) , and w a s th e re f

o re n o t p ro p e rl yra is e d in a m o tio n to re o p e n . B

. Post

- T r aumat i c St r es s D i s or der
P eti ti o n e r a lso c o n tend s tha t th e d iagn o sis of L o reta’s pos t

- t r aumat i c s t r es s di s or deri s new l yavai l abl e e v ide nce that bears on the cr edibi l i t yof her test i m on y befo re t he IJ i n h i s case

— s peci fi cal l y , her “s el ect i ve m emory ”

— and ther efor e s eeks r eopeni ng s o t hatt he I J m aycons i der this new evi dence

. T he B I A r ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent , hol di ng that L or et a’ s doct orw as t r eat i ng herforpos t

- t r aumat i c s t r es s di s or der at t he t i m e of he r32 b ro th e r’s h e a rin g a n d th e r e f o re sh e c o u ld h a v e d isc u ss e d it i n hert es t i m o ny . W hi l e w e ar e s kept i cal of thi s r eas oni ng ( pr i m ar i l y b ec aus e ther e i s no evi dence t hatC aus hi had any r eas on t o k now of the pr i vat e conve r s at i ons betw een hi s s i s t er and herdoct or ) , w e have no caus e t o r eac h t hi s i s s ue. W e have a lre a d yh e ld th a t th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n w ith r es pectt o L or et a’ s t es t i m onyi s nots uppor t ed bys u b stant i al evi den ce, and ther efor e C aus hi has no need t o i nt r oduce the pos t

- t r aumat i c s t r es s di s or derdi agnos i s as an expl anat i on for L o r e t a ’ s s u p p o s e d s e l e c t i v e m e m o r y.

C

. Subse quentG r antof A s y l um W e also find itu n n ec essa ryto co n side r w h ethe r C au sh i’ s cas e s houl d be r eopene d s o t hat L o reta ’ s as y l um gr antcan be con s i der ed byt he I J i n as s es s i ng hercr edi bi l i t y . A gai n, s i nce w e h a v e f

o u n d th a t th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n is n o t s u p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial e v id e n c e , w e d e c lin e to a d d re ss th is i s s ue. V . C oncl usi on F or the reasons st at ed ab ov e , w e grantC aushi’ s fi rs t pet i t i on forr evi ew , vaca t e the B I A ’ s N ovember8, 2004 or der i nsofa r as i taffirm ed the I J’ s oral decis i on , and rem and t his case t o t he B I A w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o r efe rt he ca s e t o t he I J forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. W e denyt he sec ond p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .