The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0924n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 21, 2006 No. 06-3074 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

N I K O L L E V U K T I L A J, Petitioner, v. AL BERTO R. GO NZ AL ES, Attorney Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF THE ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Before: SUTTON and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and COHN, DistrictJudge. * AVERN COHN, Distr ict Judge . This is an immi g ration ca se. Petitioner Nikolle Vuktilaj (Petitioner) see ks review

of an or der by

the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (B I A) a ffirmingthe I mmigration J udg es’s (I J ) dec ision to deny Petitioner’s claims for a sylum and withholding of remova l under the Immigration and Nationality Act (I NA) a nd relief under A rticle 3 of the United States Convention Ag ainst Torture ( CAT). F or the re asons that follow, the pe tition for revie w will be denied.2 I. Petitioner is a native and c itiz en of A lbania. He initially enter ed the United States on Marc h 2 8, 20 00 , w ithfr a

ud ule nt d oc ume nts . T he I mmi g ratio n a nd Natur a lizatio n Se rv ic e (I NS) place d him in removal proce eding s. On Marc h 20, 2001, Petitioner conce ded re movability but filed an a pplication for a sylum, contending that he is entitled to relief on the g rounds that he suffe red pa st persec ution as a re sult of his poli tical ac tivity , specific ally on behalf of the Democr atic Party . He suppleme nted his application on Jul y of 2002. Duringhis hearing , Petitioner first testified about his family ’s per secution under the former communist reg ime. He state d that his father was e x ecute d in 1969 and his uncle wa s imprisoned for se ven y ear s for political cr imes. As to the fac ts relatingto himself, Petiti oner te stified that he par ticipated in seve ral demonstrations ag ainst the communist reg ime from 1990 to 1992. He te stified that he wa s arr ested, be aten a

nd threatened dur ing some of these de monstrations. After one demonstration, wh ic h h e say s h e c o- or g anize d, Pe tit ion e r s ay s h e wa s a rr e ste d a nd be a te n a nd e ve ntu a lly hospitaliz ed. Petitioner also testified that from 1992 to 1996, af ter the f all of the c ommunist reg ime, things we re “ g ood” until the Socialist P arty g ained c ontrol. Petiti oner the n discussed seve ral incidents beg inning in 1997. The first incident wa s the burningof his home on J une 11, 1997. Another inc ident occur

red a fter the elec tion on J une 29, 1997 in which Petitioner pa rticipated and spoke at a Democ ratic r ally . Petitioner testified that he wa s stopped on his way home by twoPetitioner’s wife a nd child wer e also plac ed in re moval proce eding s and filed 1 applications for

asylum, withholdi ng of re moval and for relief under the CAT. The I J denied their applications and the BIA af firmed. A pa

nel of this Court denied their pe titions for r eview. Vuktilaj v. Gonzales , No. 05-3873, 2006 WL2613370 (6th Cir. Sept. 12, 2006) (per curiam). 3 police off icer s, was bea

ten in the hea d with a hammer , and re ceive d treatment at a hospital. The next i ncident occ urre d on Dec ember 12, 1997, duringa ra lly

to commemorate the foundingof the Democr atic Party . Petitioner testified he wa s arr ested a nd detained f

or five da y s. Petiti oner the n testified that on September 14, 1998, he co- org anized a demonstration protesting the assassination of Azem Ha jdari, and w as ar

rested, be aten, thre atene d and held f or two day s by

the po lic e . Pe tit ion e r a lso te sti fi e d th at on Ma rc h 2 0, 19 97 , h e pa

rt ic ipate d in

a De moc ra tic Part y ra lly and g ave a sp e e c h. Af

te r t he ra lly , h e wa s st op pe d b y the po lic e wh o thre a te ne d to kil l hi m if he did not leave the country . Petitioner left Albania two da y s later, on Ma

rch 22, 1997. In August 2000, Petit ioner’s w ife a nd child left Albania

and joined Petitioner in the Un ite d St ate s. 1 The I J issued its decision in 2004 finding that Petitioner fa iled to demonstrate that he was e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f b a s e d o nc l a i m s f

o r a s yl u m , w i th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l , o r

th e C A T . T h e B IA aff irmed the I J ’s dec ision by an orde r date d Dec ember 22, 2005. Petitioner then filed an a ppeal wi th t his Court . II. A. W h e r e th e B IAa d o p t s th e d e c i s i o no f th e IJ , w e r e v i e wth e d e t e r m i n a t i o no f

th e IJ4

direc tly . See Gu an g R un Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 4 F . 3 d

7 0 0 , 7 0 2 ( 6 thC i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . H e r e , th e B IA acknow ledg ed that not eve ry rea son identified by

the I J for f

inding Petitioner not cr edible wa s materia l to his claims, but nevertheless he ld that “in the ag g reg ate, ther e ar e suff icient re asons s t at e d f o r f i n d i n g th at[ P e t i t i o n e r ] f

a i l e d t o m e e th i s b ur d e no f

p r o o f . ” E s s e n t i a l l y , th e B IA a d o p t e d th e r e a s o n i n g o f

th e I J an d

th e r e f o r e w e r e v i e wth e d e c i s i o no f th e I J. We reviewpurely

leg al questions reg ardingthe re quirements of the I NA and CAT de novo . Al i v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 6 F. 3 d

4 0 7 , 4 0 9 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 4 ). W e w i l l af fi rm th e IJ 's fa ct u al fi n d i n gs if substantial evidenc e supports such de terminations. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Unde r this highly defe rential standa

rd, we will uphold an I J ' s decision unless “the evidenc e pre sented wa s so compelling that no rea sonable fa ct finder could fa il to find the requisite per secution or f

ear of per secution.” G u a n g

R u n Yu , 364 F.3d at 703. In a similar fa shion, in reviewingdecisions re g ardingwithholding of r emoval under the I NAand CA T, we re ve rs e on ly

wh e n th e de c isi on

a g a ins t w ithho ldi ngis “ manif e stl y c on tr ary to law.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 749 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (quoting 8 U .S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(C)) . B. 1. Adjudicatinga re quest for a sylum involves a two-step inquiry : “(1) whether the applica

nt qualifies as a

ref ug ee a s defined in [8 U.S.C.] § 1101(a) (42)( A), a nd (2) whe ther the a

pplicant5

merits a fa

vorable exercise of

discretion by

the Attorney

Gene ral.” Mikhailev itch v. I.N.S. , 146 F .3 d 3 84 , 3 89 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) (c itatio n a nd qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . With r e sp e c t to the fi rs t issue, the term “ ref

ug ee” is defined a s any person who is outside any country of such pe rson' s nationality or, in the ca se of a pe rs on havin g no natio na lity , is outsi de any c ountr y in whic h s uc h p e rs on

la st h a bit ua lly re sid e d, and

wh o is un a

ble or unwi lli ngto r e tur

n to , a nd is una ble or unwi lli ngto a

va il himself or her self of the protec tion of, that country beca use of pe rsec ution or a we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f p e rs e c uti on

on a c c ount o f r a c e , r e lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a par ticular socia l gr oup, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A).

“ Th e a sylum

a pp lic ant b e ars the burd e n o f e sta bli sh ingthat he or

sh e qu a lif

ie s a s a re fu g e e ‘e ith e r b e c a

us e he or sh e ha s su ff

e re d p a st p e rs e c uti on

or be c a us e he or sh e ha s a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution.’ ” Ouda v. I .N.S. , 324 F.3d 445, 451 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (q uo tin g8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 3( b) ). On c e the a pp lic ant s ho ws that he or

sh e ha s su ff

e re d f ro m pa st perse cution, the applica

nt is presumed to have a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 389 (quoting 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(b)(1) ). This presumption ca n be rebutted “ only

throug h establishing by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that since the per secution occur red, c onditions i n the applica nt's c ountry

‘have chang ed to such a

n extent that the applicant no longe r has a

well-founde d fea

r of be ing pe rsec uted if he w ere to return.’ ” I d. (citation omitted). He re , th e I J con c lud e d th at Pe tit ion e r w a s n ot c re dib le in h is c la im that he su ff e re d p a st perse cution. This Court has stated that thoug h “an a dverse cre dibilit y finding is affor ded su bs tanti a l de fe re nc e , th e fi nd ingmus t be su pp or te d b y sp e c if ic re a so ns . A n a dv e rs e c re dib ili tyThe REAL I D Act of

2005, Pub.L . 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (codifie d in various sec tions of 2 8 U .S. C.) , c ha

ng e d th e sta

nd ard g ov e rn ingc re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns , s tatin g that th os e deter minations may

be made “without reg ard to whe ther a n inconsistency , inacc urac y , or fa lse ho od g oe s to the he art

of the a pp lic ant' s c la im. ” 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( iii ). Th is provision, however , only

applies to aliens who a

pplied for a sylum, withholdi ng of re moval, or o th e r r e l i e f o no r a f t e r M ay 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , th e e f

f e c t i v e d a t e o f

th i s d i v i s i o no f

th e A c t . P u

b . L. 109-13, div. B, § 101( h)(2) , 119 Stat. 231 at 305. Be cause Petitioner applied for relief in 2001, thi s p ro vis ion

of the REA LI D A c t do e s n ot a pp ly to o ur re vie w o f h is c la ims . 6 finding must be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applica

nt's c laim. They

cannot be based on a

n irrele vant inconsistency .” Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation and citations omitted). 2 Petitioner say s that the I J err ed bec ause the cre dibilit y finding was ba sed on irre levant fac tors, including the timing of the f iling of his application, whether the application wa s complete, a

nd whether

Petitioner neg lected to mention var iations in his addresses. Althoug h the I J noted such fa cts, these matter s did not form the basis for the I J ’s cr edibility deter mination. Even a ssuming, as the BIA noted, that some of I J ’s cr edibility deter minations were not r eleva nt to P e tit ion e r’ s c la ims , th e I J disc us se s se ve ra l r e le va nt d isc re pa

nc ie s in the re c or d w hic h ampl y support an adve rse c redibility deter mination. F or ins tanc e , Pe tit ion e r’ s r e qu e st f or re lie f f ro m r e mov a l w a s b a se d u po n h is m e mbe rs hip and par ticipation in the Democr atic Party . Howeve r, Petitioner submitted a document fr om the “13 Dhjetor i 1990" political assoc iation that identified him as a founde r of the Re publican Party . When the I J questioned Petitioner about this appar ent discre pancy , Petitioner stated he ha d fo un de d th e Re pu

bli c an Pa rt y but di d n ot j oin

it b e c a us e he wa s a

De moc ra t. T he do c ume nt a lso mentions that Petit ioner wa s arr ested onc e in 1991, but fails to mention the sever al other7

instances whic h form the ba sis for his claims for r elief. The I J questioned Petitioner re g arding th e d o c u m e n t , an d

h e an s w e r e d

th ath e c an n o tb e e x p e c t e d t o h av e l i s t e d

e v e r y e v e n t . T h e IJ conclude d that the document “ raises se rious questions about whether or not [P etitioner] was eve r a member of the De mocratic Party

and whe ther or not he was just a member of the Republica

n Party , and whe ther he was e ver a rre sted more than just the one time” (JA at 31-32). This finding was substantially

justified. Ad dit ion a lly , Pe tit ion e r s ub mitte d a do c ume nt f

ro m a ho sp ita l w he re he wa s a

pp are ntl y treated af ter the July

21, 1997, police assa

ult with a hammer. The hospital recor d states that Petitioner was injured a s a re sult of an ac cident, not an a ssault, and is inconsistent with the amount of time that Petitioner testified he spe nt in the hospital. The I J discussed in detail other dis c re pa nc ie s in oth e r p ur po rt e d me dic a l do c ume nts and wa s c or re c t in c on c lud ingthat th os e v ar i an c e s b o r e o nP e t i t i o n e r ’ s c r e d i b i l i ty. Also supportive of an a dverse cre dibilit y finding was Petitioner’s e x panded te stimony re g ard ingc e rt a in i nc ide nts , p art ic ula rl y the a lle g e d a

rs on of his ho me . In h is wri tte n s tate me nt, Petitioner simply

rela y ed that “O n J une 11, 1997 Socialist bands put fire to my house and continued thre ateningme, my family and my relatives to vote for Socialist Party .” At the hear ing, Petitioner a dded fa cts reg ardingthis incident, namely that his wife and c hild were in the ho me at th e tim e of

the fi re and

we re save d o nly

be c a us e of the tim e ly

int e rv e nti on

of his brother- in-law. The omission of such details from the wr itten application impacts Petitioner’s c r e d i b i l i ty.8

Th e inc on sis te nc e s in

Pe tit ion e r’ s te sti mony , w hic h g o to the “ he art ” of his a sylum

c la im, “under mine a cla im of perse cution.” Patel v. Gonzales , 126 Fe d. Appx. 283, 291 (6th C ir. 2005). Over all, the I J ’s cr edibility deter mination is supported by

substantial evidence . The I J alternatively

found that eve n if Petitioner was c redible, he no longe r has a fea r of future pe rsec ution because of cha ng ed countr

y conditions. W e agree . The I J looked to rec ent State Depa

rtment Reports, on which it was e ntitled to rely . See Lumaj v. Gonzales , No. 05-3350, 2006 WL2547466 , at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 6, 2006). Indeed, a repor t shows that as of the Summer of 20 05 , th e De moc ratic Part y re tur ne d to po we r i n A lba

nia , w inn inga

ma jor ity of se a ts i n Albania’ s Parliamentar

y elec tions. SeeJA at 58 . Pe tit ion e r, ho we ve r, re lie s o n th e 20 01 State De pa rtme nt R e po rt

a s su pp or t f or his pe rs e c uti on

c la im. Th is r e po rt , h ow e ve r, state s th a t th e re is littl e evide nce of

individuals being mistreated on political g rounds. The I J also consider ed a 2004 profile by

the State Depa

rtment, which noted the chang ed and improve d political conditions in Albania. Thus, eve n assuming Petitioner w as cr edible, ther e is substantial evidenc e to support the findingthat Petitioner cannot de monstrate a r easona ble fe ar of

future pe rsec ution should he return to Alba

nia. 2. Petitioner also challeng es the B I A' s denial of his re quest for w ithholding of re moval under I NA § 241(b) (3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3). Withhol ding of remova l is required if the alien can de monstrate that “his or he r life or fre edom would be thre atene d in the proposed c ountry of remova l on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or9

po lit ic a l op ini on .” 8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b ). “ An a pp lic ant s e e kin g wi thh old ingof re mov a l f

a c e s a more string ent burde n than what is re quired on a claim for a sylum.” Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 94 1, 95 1 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 4) . In o rd e r t o q ua lif y fo r w ithho ldi ngof

re mov a l, P e tit ion e r “ mus t establish that there is a clea r proba bility that he will be subjec t to persec ution if force d to return to [ Albania].” Id . T o e sta bli sha c le ar p ro ba

bil ity , th e a

pp lic ant m

us t de mon str a te that “ it i s more likely

than not” that he w ill be persec uted upon re turn. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 2). Be cause Petitioner has fa iled to establish his eligibility for a sylum, “it therefor e follows that [P etitioner] cannot satisfy the more string ent standar d for withholding of [removal]” as we ll. Kol iad a v . I NS , 259 F.3d 482, 489 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Contrary to Petiti oner’ s sugg estion to the contra ry , no additional analy sis by the I J was re quired.

3. Pe tit ion e r’ s c la im f

or re vie w o f t

he B I A' s d e nia l of

re lie f u nd e r C AT lik e wi se fa ils . “Protec tion under the Convention exist s in the form of withholding of re moval to the country of torture.” Ali v. Reno , 237 F.3d 591, 596 ( 6th Cir. 2001). To obtain relief under CAT, Petitioner be ars the burd e n o f e sta

bli sh ing“ it i s mo re lik e ly tha n n ot t hat he or sh e wo uld

be tor tur e d if remove d to the proposed c ountry of re moval.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c )(2) . Be cause Petitioner failed to e stablish eligibility for a sylum, he also ca

nnot meet the heightened r equire ments for relief under CAT. Pilica , 388 F.3d at 955.10 4. Petitioner say s he is entitled to humanitarian a sylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208(b) (1)( iii)(B) . This section allows for a

discretionar

y g rant of a sylum to an alien who ca n establish “a rea sonable possibility

that he or she may

suffe r other se rious harm upon re moval to that country .” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(B ). Pe tit ion e r c ite s Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631 ( 6th Cir. 2005) in support. I n Liti , a pane l of thi s Co ur t f ound that th e pe tit ion e rs ’ h

uma nit ari an a sylum

c la ims we re un e xha

us te d b e c a

us e the applica

ble re gulation beca

me ef fec tive in J anuar

y 2001, afte r the pe titioners had appe aled the I J ’s orde r, but befor e the B I A issued its decision. Her e, unlike Liti , the hea ringbefor e the I J was in 2004, three year s after

the re gulation became ef fec tive. Moreove r, the re cord doe s not show th atP e t i t i o n e r

s o u g h tr e l i e f

o n th i s g r o un d . H av i n g f

a i l e d t o r a i s e th i s i s s u e b e f

o r e th e B IA below, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s c laim for re view on this g round. See 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (d )( 1) ; Pe rk ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 619 ( 6th Cir. 1994).

III . For the re asons stated a

bove, the pe tition for reviewis DENI ED.