2005 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

6-6-2005 

# V o c i v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-1807

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 no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" V oc i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 927. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/927A t t or neyG ener al G onzal es has been s ubs t i tut ed as * resp o n d en t pu rsua n t t o F ed

. R

. A p p . P

. 4 3 (c). P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 04- 1807 A L K E T V O C I, Pet i t i oner

v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A t t or neyG ener al of t he U ni t ed * S t at es, R es pondent

O n pet i t i on forr evi ew of a f i nal or der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Fi l e N o: A 79- 098- 188

__________________________________

A r gued M ay5, 2005 B e f o re : M C K E E , S M IT H , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C irc u it Judges2 ( Fi l ed: J une 6, 2005 )

C O U N SE L : M ar k A

. G ol ds t ei n, E s q. ( A r gued)

G ol ds t ei n & A s s oci at es T he G ul f Tow er , Sui t e 2330 707 G r antSt r eet Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner P e t e rD

. K e i s l e rE s q . , A s s i s t a n tA t t o r n e y G ener al , C i vi l D i vi s i on C hr i s t opherC

. Ful l er , E s q. D enni s J

. D i m s ey , E s q. L i s a W i l s on E dw ar ds , E s q. ( A r gued) U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce B en Fr ankl i n St at i on PO B ox 14403 W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20044- 4403 A t t or neys f

orR es pondent

_____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge

.V o ci ha s o n lyp rese n ted s u b stan ti v e a rgu m en t i n su p p o rt 1 of hi s as y l um cl ai m , and onl ys oughtr evi ew of hi s as y l um cl ai m i n hi s N ot i ce of

A ppeal

. T hus , i s s ues conce r ni ng w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T have e s s e n tia lly b e e n w a iv e d

. S e e Ko p e c v . T a te , 361 F. 3d 772, 7 7 5 n .5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ A n iss u e is w a iv e d u n les s a p a rty r ai s es i ti n i t s openi ng br i ef, and fort hos e purpos es a pas s i ng r efe r ence t o an i s s ue . . . w i l l nots uffi ce t o br i ng t hati s s ue befor e t hi s cour t ”) ( quot i ng Labore r ’s I nt ’ lU ni on v. Fos t er W heel erC or

p. , 2 6 F .3 d 3 7 5 , 3 9 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ))

.

3 A pp el l a nt A l ket V oci, a nati ve o f A l ban i a, app eal s a deci s i on of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e al s ( “B I A ”) , i n w hi ch t he B I A affirm ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ’ s ”) deni al of V oci ’ s appl i cat i on forasy lum , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and p rotec ti o n u n d er the U n it ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai n st T o rtu re ( “C A T ”)

. T he B I A r ej ect ed t he I J ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatV oci

1 lac k e d c re d ib ili ty , b u t ag re e d n o n e th e les s th a t V o c i h a d f a iled to dem on strat e el i gibi l i t yfor asy lu m or for ot her r el i ef. B ecause Vo c i ’ s t e s t i mo n yh a s b e e n a c c e p t e d b yt h e BI A a s c r e d i b l e , we hol d t hatt he B I A err ed i n det er m i ni ng t hatthe incident s of po li ce m i s t r eatm entdes cr i bed byV oci di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on u ndert he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct ( “I N A ”)

. W hi l e w e t ake no pos i t i on conce r ni ng w hetherV oci w i l l ul t i m at el ybe ent i t l ed t o t he re l i ef he s eeks , t he abs ence of a n a ly sis in th e B IA ’s d e c isio n re q u ire s re m a n d to th e B IA , in or dert o per m i tt h e B I A expl i ci t l yt o addr es s the i s s ues im p lica ted b yV o c i’s a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m . In a d d iti o n , if4 up on rem and V oci i s abl e to est abli sh t hat he suffered pa st persecut i on , i tm aybe ap propri at e for t he ag encyt o ad dress w h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s s h o w n th a t co n d iti o n s in A lb a n ia have c hanged, s uch thatV oci no l ongerhas a r eas onabl e fe arof f a c in g p e rs e c u tio n if

h e w e re to re tu rn . I . F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY
A . V oc i ’ s Tes t i m ony V oci t es t i fi ede x t e n s i v e l yc o n c erni ng hi s backgr ound and f a mi l yh i s t o r y i n Al b a n i a . W h i l e Vo c i d i s c u s s e d v a r i o u s f o r ms of m i s t r eatm entt hathi s gr andfa t her exper i ence d undert he C o m m u n istreg im e, th ese issu e s h a v e li tt le be aring o n V o ci’s el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um . W i t h r es pectt o hi s ow n per s ecut i on, V oci t es t i fi ed thati n 1990 he becam e i nvol ved i n t he “de m ocr acy m ovement ” t hatw as t aki ng hol d i n A l bani a. V oci i ndi cat ed that he and otherstud en ts a thi s hi gh s chool , al ong w i t h four pr ofes s or s , began hol di ng m eet i ngs t o di s cus s w ay s i n w hi ch they co ul d s eek de m ocr at i c r eform . V oci i ndi cat ed thatt he m ovementg r e w ov e rt i me , a n d o n Fe b ru a r y2 0 , 1 9 9 1 , a l a r ge p rotest rall yw as h eld i n K o rca , A lban ia. A t th is r all y , p rotesters pu l l ed d ow n a l arge st atue of E nv er H ox ha, a form er C om m un i st Pr i m e M i ni s t er of A l bani a. V oci t es t i fi ed t hat he w as beat en by pol i ce offi cer s at t hi s pr ot es t , and he s uffe r ed cut s w hi ch r equi r ed s t i t ches , ul t i m at el y r es ul t i ng i n a l engthyhos pi t al s t ay w h e n h is w o u n d s b e c a m e in f e c te d

.5 V oci test i fi ed thatdur i ng t he ea r l y1990s , as t he D emocr at i c Par t ygai n ed pow erand i nfl uence , he and other ac ti v ist s rec eive d a n u m b er o f a n o n y m o u s threa tenin g let ters w arni ng t hem t o cease thei r pol i t i cal act i vit i es. V oci al so in d ic a te d th a t f

ro m 1 9 9 0 th ro u g h 1 9 9 4 , the p o lice re p e a ted ly c a m e to h is h o m e se a r c h in g f o r h im , an d th e yth re a ten e d h is m otherw i t h h arm if V o c i d i d n ot ceas e his po l i t i cal act i vit i es. V oci expl ai ned t hat t he pol i ce had vi deot aped t he February20, 1991, pr ot es tr al l yi n K or ca, and byr evi ew i ng t hes e vi deot apes t heyi dent i fi ed V oci as one of the l eade r s of t he ra ll y . A l ong w i t h the v is i t s t o hi s hom e, V oci al s o i ndi cat ed thaton s ever al occa s i ons dur i ng t hi s s ame per i od t he pol i ce c ame t o hi s s chool lo o k in g f o r h im , an d th a t o n th e se o c c a sio n s V o c i m a n a g e d to g e t o u t o f

th e s c h o o l b u ild in g w ith o u t b e in g c a u g h t.
T he D emocr at i c Par t yw on el ect i ons i n 1994, but acc or di ng t o V oci t hi s di d not end hi s per s ecut i on byt he pol i ce. V oci i ndi cated that i n t he y ear s l eadi ng up t o 1997, w hen the Soci al i s t Par t y r egai ned pow er , he w as beat en up o n m any occasi on s by t he p oli ce. V oci t est i fi ed thatseven o f t hese beat i ngs w er e seve r e, r es ul t i ng i n bl eedi ng and s car s . T hr ee of th e se b e a tin g s o c c u rre d in c o n n e c tio n w ith d e m o n stra ti o n s in w hi ch V oci par t i ci pat ed, and four occurr ed on occ as i ons w hen the pol i ce a ccos t ed V oci on a s t r eetoral l eyw ayas he w al ked t hr ough t ow n. O n o n e o cc asion, t he pol i ce be atV oci w i t h t he bl unt end of a gun, br eaki ng hi s knee a nd caus i ng V oci t o s pend s e v e ra l w e e k s in th e h o s p ita l.Voci also pre sented c orroboratingtestimony from his sister, 2 Ingri d L ama , a

nd his fo rm e r A lba

nia n b us ine ss p art

ne r, I lir Dre nesku. L ama is now a lawful pe rmane nt resident, a benefit she obtained as a

result of the U .S. gove rnment’s “ diversity lottery” for immigra nts seekingperma

nent re sident status. Drene sku, like Voci, ca me to the U.S. using f

ake documents, and is an applica nt for a sylum. 6 V o c i tes tifie d th a t th e S o c ialist P a rtyre g a in e d p o w e r in 1 9 9 7 , a n d t h a t i t s l e a d e r s h i p was c o mpr i s e d o f for m er C om m uni s tP artyoffi ci al s oper at i ng undera new name. V oci sta ted th a t h e c o n tin u e d to f a c e p e rse c u tio n a f

ter th e S o c ialists r egai ned pow eri n 1997, cul m i nat i ng i n a 1998 i nci denti n w hi ch t he pol i ce came t o hi s par ent s ’ hous e, des t r oy ed a numberof t he fa m il y ’s b elon g ing s, an d b ea t V o ci, h is m o ther, an d h is si ster. V oci al s o expl ai ned t hatdur i ng t he mi d t o l at e- 1990s he fa ced pol i ce ha r as s m enti n connec t i on w i t h a rest aur antt hathe o p e ra ted w ith a f

rie n d a n d f

e llo w D e m o c ra tic P a rtya c tiv ist. P oli ce w ou l d com e t o the r est aurant , harass and t hreat en p at rons, break g l asses and w i nd ow s, and gen eral l ydis rupt t he b usi ness. V oci i ndi cat ed t hat al t hough t he m en w ho beat hi m and att acke d hi s r es t aur antw er e oft en dr es s ed i n pl ai n cl ot hes , he r ecogni zed t hem as l ocal pol i ce of

fi cer s . V oci i ndi cat ed thatas a r es ul tof t he per s ecut i on he face d, he at t empt ed t o r el ocat e t o a di ffe r ent par tof A l bani a t o s t ayw i t h hi s uncl e. T hi s arr angem en tw as onl yt empora r y , how ever , and he e ventual l yfl ed A l bani a and came t o t he U ni t ed St at es , arr i vi ng on M ar ch 14, 2001. 27 B . T he I J’ s O pi ni on A tt he conc l us i on of V oci ’ s J une 24, 2002, hear i ng, t he IJ st ated that h e w o u ld d en yV o ci’s pe ti tio n f o r re li ef

. T h e IJ m emori al i zed hi s fi ndi ngs and r at i onal e i n a s ep ara te or al d ec isi o n an d o rde r. T h e IJ in d icated that h e d id n o t view V o ci’s t e s t i mon y a s c r e d i b l e , a n d c o n c l u d e d a s wel l t h a t “ n o t h i n g t he r es pond en t h as t es t i fi ed t o amount s t o per s ecut i on i n t he cons i der ed opi ni on of t he C our t

. ” The I J not ed that“the C om m uni s t s hav e been gone fr om A l bani a s i nce 1991 a nd [] t her e i s abs ol ut el yno evi dence t hatt he S o ciali s t s have per s ecut ed t he r es pondentpr i ort o hi s comi ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es and abs ol ut el yno pr oof t hathe i s goi ng t o be per s ecut ed agai n i f he r etur ns t o hi s countr y . ” T he I J al s o s t at ed thatV oci h ad fa il ed to p rov e h is va rio u s all eg ati o n s “to this C o u rt ’s s at i s fac t i on i ns ofaras he has nots ubm i t t ed anys uppor t i ng document at i on. ”

T he I J w enton t o di s cus s countr y condi t i ons i n A l bani a, n o ti n g that the S tat e D ep artm en t rep o rt s co n tai n ed in th e re co rd r efl ect ed fa vor abl y on t he pol i t i cal cl i m at e i n A l bani a. B as ed upon t hes e mat er i al s , t he I J s t at ed:
A s s um i ng ar guendo th att he r es pondenthad i ndeed p rov en to the C o u rt th at he h ad b ee n p erse cu ted b ef o re t he fal l of com m uni s m and af t ert he Soci al i s t s had t aken p o w e r in A lb a n ia, th e C o u rt w o u ld n o n e th e les s d e n yh is i ns t antappl i cat i on under8 C

. F. R

. 208. 13 ins ofaras8 bas ed on t he St at e D epart m ent R epor t s t he C our t f i nds t hatt her e has been a fundame n tal change i n t he ci r cumst ance s i n A lban i a s uch t o t he ef fec tt hatt he r es pondent w oul d no l onger have a w el l

- founded fearof p e rse c u tio n in h is c o u n tryif h e w e re in d e e d re tu rn e d to A lb a n ia

. C . T he B I A ’ s O pi ni on Vo c i a p p e a l e d t h e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s p e t i t i o n t o t h e BI A, and on Febru ary 2 5 , 2004, t he B I A i s s ued a one

- page opi ni on dis m i ssi ng V oci’ s appea l

. T he B IA ’s op i nion st at es:
T he Imm i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on dat ed June 24, 2002, acc ur at el ys et s for t h t he fact s as s er t ed by t he r es pondent in su p p o rt o f h is c laim f o r re lief f ro m re m o v a l. W h ile w e do no tagree w i t h the I m m i grat i on Judg e’s adv ers e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng, w e agr ee t hatt he r es pondenthas not demonst r at ed el i gi bi l i t y for as y l um and al s o aff i rm t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s det er m i nat i on t hatt he r es pondent ha s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h g r o u n d s f o r g r a n t i n g t h e ot her for m s of r el i ef r eques t ed. I n s um , t he r es pondenthas not d e m o n stra te d th a t h e h a s s u f f e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n in A l bani a. N orhas he demonstr at ed a w el l

- fou nded fe ar of per s ecut i on bas ed on a prot ect ed ground undert he A ct w er e he t o r etur n t o A l bani a. L i kew i s e, t h e re s pondent has not es t abl i s hed t hat i t i s m or e l i kel yt han nott hathe w oul d be per s ecut ed ort or tur ed upon r etur n t o A l bani a.9 W e not e thatt he r es pondent cont ends on appea l t hatt he m anneri n w hi ch the I m m i gr at i on J udge conduc t ed the hear i ng, as w el l as t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s at t i tude t ow ar d hi m , depr i ved hi m of hi s ri g h t t o a fa i rhear i ng. A re v i ew of the heari ng t ranscr i pt does no treveal, how ever , t hatt he r espondents uffe r ed anypr ej udi ce. I nas m u ch as w e ar e i n agr eementw i t h t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on, w e aff i r m hi s deci s i on bas ed upon and fo r t he r eas ons s etfor t h her ei n. A ccor di ngl y , t he re s p o n d e n t’ s a p p e a l is d is m is s e d

. (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

I I . J UR I S DI CT I ON
W e have j ur i s di ct i on overan appeal fr om a fi nal or derof t he B I A aff

i r m i ng a dec i s i on of t he I J t o denyan al i en’ s as y l um a p p lica tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ); se e B e ris h a j v . A sh c ro

ft , 378 F

. 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). In th is case , alt h o u g h the B IA agr eed w i t h t he I J ’ s deci s i on t o den y reli ef, i tdi d notadoptor defe rt o t he fi ndi ngs of t he I J. I ns t ead, i texpr es s ed di s agr eementw i t h t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng, buts t at ed i n a conc l uso ry fa sh i on t hatV oci had fa i l ed t o s how t hathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on i n A l bani a. I n s uch ca s es t he fi nal or derw e r evi ew i s t he deci s i on of t he B I A , not t he deci s i on of th e IJ

. S e e Mia h v . A sh c ro ft , 346 F. 3d 434, 439 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “ T h e f i n a l o r d e rwe n o r ma l l y r e v i e w i s t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e BI A, u n les s th e B IA d e f

e rs to th e IJ’ s f

in d in g s” ); A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft ,10 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “C ongr es s has gr ant ed us pow ert o r evi ew onl y‘ fi nal or der s of r emoval

. ’ B eca us e an a l i en faci ng rem ov al m ay app eal t o the B IA as of ri gh t , and becau se the B IA h a s th e p o w er to c o n d u ct a d e n o v o rev iew o f IJ decis i on s, t here i s no ‘fi nal or der’ un t il th e B IA act s. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we n o w e x p r e s s l yh o l d t h a tt h e ‘ f i n a l o r d e r ’ we re v ie w is th a t o f

th e B IA .” ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
W e r ecogni ze thati n s om e i ns t ance s , w e re vi ew bot h t he deci s i ons of t he I J and the B I A

. H ow ever , b ec ause our ju ri s d ic tio n is re s tr ic te d to re v ie w in g “ f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l,” t hi s appr oach i s m eantt o be the exc ept i on r athert han the rul e. S ee A b d u l ai , 2 3 9 F .3 d a t 5 4 5 (“ W e b e g in b yc lar if y in g th a t, a b se n t s peci alci r cum s t ances no tpresenthere, w e revi ew on ly deci sion s b yt he B I A and nott hos e byi m m i gr at i on j udges ”) ( emphasi s added)

. W hen fi r s taddr es s i ng t hi s i s s ue i n A bdul ai , w e cha r act er i zed s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch the I J ’ s deci s i on w oul d be r evi ew ed as t hos e i n w hi ch the B I A “expr es s l y ad o p ted [a] por t i on of t he I J ’ s opi ni on” or“announc ed thati tw as defe r r i ng” to th e IJ ’s f

in d in g s . See i d. at549 n. 2. O urs ubseq u entcas es h a v e f o llo w e d th is a p p ro a c h

. S e e , e.g ., Ko ry tn y u k v . A sh c ro

ft , 396 F. 3d 272, 286- 87 ( 3d C ir

. 2005) ( anal y zi ng B I A ’ s us e of pas s i ve voi ce t o concl ude that B I A had adopt ed s peci fi c fa ctual f in d in g m a d e b yIJ) ; C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 221- 22 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (w h ere B IA ’s op inion listed flaw s in a p p li ca n t’ s t est i m on y , and st at ed t hat “fo r tho se r easons a n d o th e rs c itedin the I m m igr at i on Judge’s decis i on , t h e I mmi g r a t i o n J udge c o rre c tlyd e n ied th e re sp o n d e n t’s a p p lica tio n ,” c o u rt w o u ld11 re v iew b o th d e c isio n s) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ); X ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 359 F. 3d 239, 242, 246 n. 9 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( r evi ew i ng bot h deci s i ons w h ere B IA stat ed that it w as giv ing “sig n ifi ca n t w eigh t” t o IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ity fin d ing , an d d iscl aim ing reli an ce o n IJ’s “demeanor ” ana l y s i s w her e appl i cant ’ s dem ea n o rw as not re f e re n c e d in B IA o p in io n ); Mi ah , 346 F. 3d at439 ( expl ai ni ng need t o r eview bo t h deci si on s w here B IA rej ect ed IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i t yfi n di ng, and expl i ci t l yadopt ed I J ’ s corr obor at i on an aly sis, n o ti n g that issue s w e re in tertw ined b ec au se IJ’s c re d ib ili tyf

in d in g s in f

lu e n c e d IJ’ s v iew s c o n c e rn in g n e c e ss ity o f c o rr o b o ra tio n ).

In su m , the c a se s in w h ich w e h a v e re v iew e d b o th deci s i ons have al l i nvol ved si tuat i ons i n w hi ch t he l anguage of t he B I A ’ s opi ni on di r ect l ys t at es t hatt he B I A i s defe r r i ng t o t he IJ, o r in v o k e s s p e c if

ic a sp e c ts o f

th e IJ’ s a n a ly sis a n d f a c tf in d in g in su p p o rt o f th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n s. H e re , in c o n tra st, th e B IA e x p re ss e d d isa g re e m e n t w ith th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng, and di d nots peci fi cal l yr efe r ence o r a doptot her por t i ons of t he I J ’ s anal y s i s . I n agr eei ng w i t h the d ec i s i on r eac hed b y t he I J , t he B I A s t at ed thati tw as doi ng s o “bas ed upon and fort he r eas ons s etfort h her ei n. ” A 1 :2 (e m p h a sis added)

. I n t h is si tuat i on, w e mustr es t r i ctourr evi ew t o t he ques t i on of w hethert he under l y i ng r ecor d pr ovi des s ubs t ant i al e v i d e n c e f

o rt h e BI A’ s c o n c l u s i o n s . As d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, we cannotr es cue the B I A fr om i t s pauci t yof ana l y s i s byi nj ect i ng i s s ues t hatw er e r ai s ed byt he I J , butw er e nei t heraddr es s ed norWe rec ognize that the larg e number of ca ses on the B IA’s 3 docket imposes pra ctical limitations on the length of the B IA’s writt e n o pin ion s. Th e dif fi c ultie s in

thi s a pp e a l st e m no t f

ro m a B IA o pin ion

that is too sh or

t, b ut rather f

ro m th e B IA’ s f

a ilureto identi fy thepo rtion s o f t

heIJ’s a nalysis that it

wa s a do ptingin su pp or t of its c on c lus ion

that V oc i had n ot d e mon strate d p a st pe rs e c uti on . In c a se s whe retheB IA agre e s w iththeIJ’s a nalysis and conc lusions, we have uphe ld the BIA’s strea mlining proc e dure , in

wh ic h it e ff e c tiv e ly a dopts theIJ’s o pin ion

a s it s own. Se eDi a v . A sh c ro

ft , 353 F.3d 228, 243- 45 (3d Cir. 2003) ( en banc ). In c a se s whe retheB IA re je c ts p or tio ns of theIJ’s a nalysis , b utn o n e th e l e s s a gr e e s w i thth e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o nt o d e ny r e l i e f , th e B IA ne e d n ot wri tea

lengthy op ini on . H ow e ve r, it mus t e ith e r b ri e fly state its own rea sons for re jectingthe petitioner’s c laim, or identify thepo rtion s o f t

heIJ’s a nalysis that it

ha s a do pte d in

su pp or t of its decision to deny

relief

. 12 r el i ed upon i n t he B I A ’ s opi ni on. 3

III . A N A L Y S IS
A n asy l um app l i cant m ustdem on strat e ei t her past p e rs e c u tio n o r a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r o f f u t u r e p e rs e c u tio n . See G a o v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In o rd e r to es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yon t he bas i s of pas tper s ecut i on, an appl i cant m us ts how : “( 1) an i nci dent , ori nci dent s , t hatr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) t hati s on acc ountof a s t at u tori l ypr ot ect ed gr ound ; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed byt he governm entorfor ces t he gover nm ent i s ei t her unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o contr ol

. ” See G ao , 299 F. 3d at272. A n ap p li ca n t h as a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture13 p erse cu ti o n if h e sh o w s tha t he h as a su b jecti v elyg en u ine f

ea r, and thata r eas onabl e per s on i n hi s ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea r p e rs e c u tio n if

re tu rn e d to h is n a tiv e c o u n tr y . See i d.
W hetheran asy l um app l i cant has dem on strat ed p ast persecut i on or a w el l -foun ded fea r o f f u ture persecut i on i s a fac tual det er m i nat i on r evi ew ed undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s ta n d a rd

. S e e id

. ( ci t i ng A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). [ T ]h e q u e stio n w h e th e r a n a g e n c yd e te r m in a tio n is s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i s t he s ame as t he ques t i on w hether a r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake s uch a de t er m i nat i on bas ed upo n t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. I f a r easo n abl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake a par t i cul arfi ndi ng on t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d, t hen the fi ndi ng i s su p p o rt ed b y su b stan ti al evi dence

. C onver s el y , i f no r eas onabl e fact fi nder coul d m ake that fi ndi ng on t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d, t he fi ndi ng i s not s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . D ia v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c ).

T he B I A acc ept ed V oci ’ s t es t i m onyas cr edi bl e, and y et determ i ned t hat V oci had n ot s ho w n t hat he exp eri enced past p e rse c u tio n in A lb a n ia. T h e B IA ’s o p in io n d o e s n o t ex p lain how t he B I A r eac hed thi s r es ul t

. I tappea r s t her e ar e t w o paths t he B I A m ayhave t aken, nei t her of w hi ch i s s at i s fac t or yon t heWe have e x cluded f rom our calculus the incident in which 4 Voci claimed to have be en knocke d down and be aten up by police 14 curr entr ecor d. Fi r s t , t he B I A coul d have det er m i ned t hateven acc ept i ng V oci ’ s t es t i m onyas t ru e, the be at i ngs and other m i s t r eatm enthe expe r i ence d s i m pl y di d not r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on undert he I N A

. A l t ernat i vel y , t he B I A coul d have det er m i ned t hateven i f V oci ’ s t es t i m ony w as cr edi bl e, and eve n if th e e v e n ts d e sc rib e d in th e tes tim o n yw o u ld b e su f f icie n tly s ever e t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, V oci ’ s fa il ur e t o pr ovi de corr obor at i ve document aryevi dence m eantt hatV oci had not carr i ed h i s burden of p roof w i th re spect t o d em on strat i ng past p e rs e c u tio n . A . T he “Severi t y ” T heory
T he fi r s tt heor y , t hatt he al l eged mi s t r eatm ents uffe r ed by V o c i a t th e h a n d s o f

th e p o lice w a s n o t su f f icie n tlyse v e re to cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, appea r s t o be i ncons i s t entw i t h exi s t i ng B I A and fe d eral appel l at e dec i s i ons . W hi l e the I N A does not defi ne the t erm “per s ecut i on, ” w e have i ndi cat ed that per s ecut i on denot es “extr eme conduct , ” and that “the conc eptof p e rse c u tio n d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll tre a tm e n t th a t o u r so c iety re g a rd s a s u n f

a ir , u n ju s t o r e v e n u n la w f

u l o r u n c o n s titu tio n a l.” S e e Fa t i n v . I

NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. V oci al l eged thathe s uffe r ed mul t i pl e bea t i ng s, s even of w hi ch he char act er i zed a s s ever e, and atl east o n e of w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a br oken knee and an e xt ended hos pi t al s t ay . H e al s o al l eges t hat 4in c onne c tio n w iththeF ebr ua ry 19 91 De moc raticPart

y prote st rally in Korc a . V oc i’ s te sti mony indic ate d th at th is p ro te st involved vandalism by

the protester s, in which they pulled down a larg e statue of

the forme r Prime Minister of Albania . Police vio le nc e ari sin gin re sp on seto c ivi l unre st a nd vio le nt p ro te sts , even policeviolence that might involve excessive force, is not nece ssarily

considere d perse cution on acc ount of an a pplicant’s political beliefs. Se e, e .g., Sh ar da r v . A sh c ro

ft , 382 F.3d 318, 323- 24 (3d Cir. 2004) (upholdingIJ ’s findingof no per secution whe re evidenc e indicate d that detention of pe titioner aroseas a result of petitioner’s pa

rticipation in an unlawf

ul violent demonstration); Mu lla i v . A sh c ro

ft , 385 F.3d 635, 638 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s e v i d e n c e th ats h e w a s b e at e nb y p o l i c e an d j a i l e d f o r tw o d ays followingparticipation in protest rally “could reasona

bly be viewe d as motivated by

her status a s a proteste r rather than relig ious perse cution”). 15 he w as t hr eat ened on mul t i pl e occ as i ons, and t hatpol i ce a ttem p ted to in tim id a te h is f a m ilym e m b e rs a n d th re a ten e d th e ir safet yi f V oci r efused t o ab and on his po l i t i cal act i vit i es.
T aken t ogether , w e bel i eve the mi s t r eatm en t al l eged by V oci r i s es t o t he l evel of “per s ecut i on. ” I f V oci i ndee d fa ced m ul t i pl e beat i ngs fr om pol i ce, i ncl udi ng beat i ngs t h at ca us ed in ju rya n d th a t in o n e in sta n c e b ro k e h is k n e e a n d re su lted in e x ten d e d h o sp italiz a tio n , all a s a re su lt o f h is p o lit ica l b e lief

s, it can f ai r l ybe s ai d t hatt he pol i ce w er e engaged i n a “pr ogr am or cam paign t o . . . dri ve aw ayor subjugat e [V oci] becau se of [h i s] bel i efs

. ” S e e Fa tin , 12 F. 3d at 1240 n. 10 ( di s cus s i ng defi ni t i on of “pe r s ecut i on”)

. Pr i orB I A pr ece dents uppor t s t hi s vi ew . For16 exampl e, i n a ca s e w her e an a s y l um appl i cants uffe r ed phy s i cal at t acks on t hr ee oc ca sions , w her e hi s s on s uffe r ed a phy s i cal at t ack thatr es ul t ed i n an i nj ur yt o t h e s on’ s knee r equi r i ng h o sp italiz a tio n , w h e re th e a p p lica n t’s a p a rtm ent w as broke n in to and hi s pos s es s i ons s t ol en or de s t r oy ed, and w her e the appl i cant a n d h is s o n w e re v e rb a llyh a ra ss e d a n d th re a ten e d o n m u lti p le o cc asio n s, the B IA h eld t h at “the se i n cide n ts co n stitu te m o re t han mer e di s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m ent

. I n t he aggr egat e, t hey r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on as cont empl at ed byt he A ct

. ” See In re O -Z

& I-Z , 1 1 9 8 B IA L E X IS 1 2 , * 6 -* 7 (A p ri l 2 , 1 9 9 8 ).
W hi l e thi s C our thas noty etd raw n a pre ci s e l i ne con cerni ng w here a si m ple beat i ng end s and persecut i on beg i ns, o u r c a se s s u g g e st th a t iso late d in c id e n ts th a t d o n o t re su lt i n s e ri o u s in

ju ry d o n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n . S e e , e .g ., C h e n v . A sh c ro

ft , 381 F. 3d 221, 234- 35 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hatB I A r eas onabl y found t hat r es pondent ’ s al l eged be at i ng at t he hands of gover nm ent offi ci al s di d notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on, and s t at i ng “C hen’ s s cuff l e w it h t he l ocal offi ci al s does not appea rt o have be en se ri o us . For exampl e, the governm ent poi nt s outt hatC hen has neveral lege d t hatt hi s al t er cat i on resu lt ed in an yinjuries that req u ir ed m ed ical trea tm en t”); W o ld e rm a ria m v . A sh c ro

ft , 1 1 2 F ed

. A p p x . 1 8 9 , 1 9 3 (3d C ir

. 2004) ( “[T] he purpor t ed bea t i ng of W ol der m ar i am by t he E r i t r ean a ut hor i t i es , a s ol i t aryi nci dentcaus i ng no s eri ous i njur i es, do es not evi nce co nd uct so se vere t hat i tcon st i tutes a re a l th re a t to life o r f

re e d o m ” ). In c o n tra st to th e re sp o n d e n ts in C hen and W

older m ar i am , V oci al l eged thathe s uffe r ed r epea t edThe “ other ha rassment”in Voci’s ca se would include the 5 threateningletters re ceive d by Voci duringthe ea

rly 1990s, the mul tip leoc c a sio ns be tw e e n 1 99 0 a nd 19 94 wh e rethepo lic e c ame to V oc i’ s h omeand

thre ate ne d h is m oth e r, and the19 98 inc ident i n which the policecameto Voci’s parents’ house, f orce d their wa

y in, de stroye d a

number o f t

hefa mily ’s be lon g ing s, and

be at V oc i, his sist er, a

nd his mother. 17 beati ng s over a peri od of sev eral y ears , and t hat s even of these b e a tin g s w e re “ se v e re ,” re su lti n g in b lee d in g , sc a rs, a n d “ h e a lth pr obl ems. ” T hi s m i s t r eatm ent appar ent l y cul m i nat ed i n a 1997 beat i ng w here V oci ’ s knee w as br oken bya pol i ce of fi cer w i el di ng a gun, aft erw hi ch V oci w as l eftbyt he s i de of the r oad u n til a p a ss e rb ysu m m o n e d a ss ista n c e . V o c i tes tifie d th a t th is in ju ry to h is k n e e re su lted in a h o sp ital sta yo f a p p ro x im a tely t hr ee mon ths. V oci ’ s t es t i m onyw i t h r es pectt o t he number of b e a t i n g s h e s u f

f e r e d , a n d t he i nj u r i e s r e s u l t i n g t h e r e f r o m, d i s t i n g u i s h e s h i s s i tu a t i o n f r o m C hen and Wold e r mari am , and i s i ns t ead mor e ana l ogous t o O -Z & I-Z , in w h ich th e B IA h e ld t h a tm u l t i p l e b e a t i n g s , i n c l u d i n g o n e r e s u l t i n g i n a k n e e i n j u r y, coupl ed w i t h ot herhar as s m ent , cons t i tut ed per s ecu ti on under t h e I NA. 5

T h e c o n c lu sio n th a t V o c i ex p e rie n c e d p a st p e rse c u tio n is a lso c o n sis ten t w ith th e a p p ro a c h tak e n b y th e S e v e n th C irc u it, w hi ch has addr es s ed on mul t i pl e occ as i ons t he q u esti on of w hethera bea t i ng ors er i es of bea t i ngs r i s es t o t he l evel of p e rse c u tio n u n d e r th e IN A . T h e S e v e n th C irc u it’s b a sic18 a p p ro a c h is th a t if a b e a tin g is a n iso late d in c id e n t, an d if it r esult s in m i nor , butnots ever e, phy s i cal i nj ur y , t hen i tw i l l be u n lik e ly to c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n u n d e r t h e IN A

. See D andan v . A sh c ro ft , 339 F. 3d 567, 573- 74 ( 7t h C i r . 2003) ( s i ngl e thr eedayd e t e n t i o n , i n whi c h r e s p o n d e n t was d e p r i v e d o f f o o d and su f f e r e d a sw o llen f

a c e a s a re su lt o f

b e a tin g s f

ro m p o lice , d id notcompel r ever s al of B I A ’ s deci s i on t hatr es pondent h ad not s uffe r ed per s ecut i on)

. I n contr as t , m ul t i pl e bea t i ngs i nfl i ct ed on th e sa m e re sp o n d e n t o n m u lti p le o c c a sio n s a re m o re lik e lyto gi ve r i s e t o a fi ndi ng of per s ecut i on, al t hough t he exi stence of m u ltip le in c id e n ts is n o t a re q u ir e m e n t. See id. at573 (“A lth o u g h the f

req u en cyissue is no t d ispo sit ive, i t do es f igu re sig n if ica n tlyin th e a n a ly sis

. . . W h il e , o b v io u sly , m u lti p le i nci dent s cr eat e a m or e compel l i ng cas e forfi ndi ng per s ecut i on, th e n u m b e r o f

tim e s th a t a p e tit io n e r h a s b e e n su b jec t to d e ten tio n o r p h y sic a l ab u se is m e re lyo n e v a ria b le in th e a n a ly sis of t he w hol e of t he pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m of past per s ecut i on”)

. T he Sevent h C i r cui t has al s o i ndi cat ed thateven a s i ngl e bea t i ng can c o n stitu te p e rse c u tio n , as su m in g th a t th e b e a tin g re s u lt s in s ig n if i c a n t p h y s ic a l in

ju ry. S e e , e . g . , As a n i v . I NS , 154 F. 3d 71 9, 72 2-23 (7t h C i r. 19 98 ) ( res po nd ent s uff ered past per s ecut i on w her e he w as det ai ned by pol i ce, beat en, an d h ad tw o o f h is te e th k n o c k e d o u t); Va d u v a v . I NS , 131 F. 3d 689, 690 ( 7t h C i r . 1997) ( s i ngl e bea t i n g i n w hi ch pet i t i oner ’ s fac e w as b ruised an d h is fing er b rok en co n sti tuted p ast p ers e c u tion ). It appea r s t hatV oci ’ s m i s t r eatm entatthe h an ds of t he A l bani an p o lice w o u ld c o n stitu te p a st p e rse c u tio n u n d e r th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s a p p ro a c h . W e lik e w ise c o n c lu d e th a t if V o c i is a b le to19 m eethi s bur den of pr oof and sh o w thatt he i nci dent s he des cr i bed ac tual l yoccurr ed, t hes e i nci dent s w oul d be suffici entl y severe, w hen t aken t og et her, t o s at i sfy t he fi rs t pr ong of G a o ’s t hr ee- par t t es t for es t abl i s hi ng pas tper s ecut i on. Fi nal l y , w i t h r es pectt o t hi s i s s ue, w e ar e unaw ar e of a ny pr i orB I A orfede r al appel l at e ca s es i n w hi ch t r eatm ents i m i l ar t o t hatexper i ence d byV oci w as found t o not r i s e t o t he l evel of p e rse c u tio n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a rg u e s th a t th e B IA re a so n a b ly concl uded t hatt he i nci dent s des cr i bed byV oci d id n o t s at i s fy th e “ se v e r it y” th re sh o ld e sta b lish e d b yth e f irst G ao pr ong. H ow ever , t he onl ycas es cit ed byt he governm enton t hi s i s s ue ar e i nvoked forpurpos es of t he boi l erpl at e pr opo si t i on t hat per s ecut ion m u s ti nvol ve extr eme conduct , and does not nece s s ar i l yencompas s al l t r eatm entt hatm i ghtbe unpl eas antor c a u se su f

f e rin g . T h e se c itatio n s a re n o t p a rticu lar lyh e lp f u l in a d d r e s s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n a t h a n d , a n d t h e g o v e r n me n t h as ci t ed to n o a u th o rity , fr o m th is C o u rt o r a n yo th e r, w h ich w o u ld i ndi cat e t hat m i s t r eatm entof t he s or texper i ence d byV oci does n o t r ise t o the lev el of

p erse cu ti o n u n d er the IN A

. W e the ref o re hol d t hatt o t he ext entt he B I A det er m i ned tha tt he patt ern of m istre a tm e n t alle g e d lysu f f e re d b yV o c i w a s n o t su f f ic ie n tly s ever e t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, t he B I A ’ s fi nd ing w as not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. B . T he “C orroborat i on” T heory
T he governm entar gues t hatan al t ernat i ve theoryt hat“In setting out this summary of the [BIA’s] case la

w, we 6 e xpre ss n o o pin ion

a s to wh e ther w e agre e that it is ‘ re a so na

ble ’ t o e xpe c t a pp lic ants fo r a sylum

or wi thh oldingof

re mov a l to corroboratethese ty

pes of infor

mation.” Abdulai , 239 F.3d at 555 n.9. 20 s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s deni al of V oci ’ s cl ai m r el at es t o t he abs ence of corr obor at i ve evi dence for por t i ons of V oci ’ s t es t i m ony . T he I J compl ai ned thatV oci had notpr oduced doc um ent at i on or m edi cal r ecord s to cor r obor at e hi s cl ai m s of havi ng been hos pi t al i zed a ft erbei ng beat en byt he A l bani an pol i ce. W e have h e ld th a t “th e B IA m a yso m e tim e s re q u ire o th e rw ise -c re d ib le appl i cant s t o s uppl ycorr obor at i ng evi dence i n o rdert o m eet t hei r bur den of pr oof. ” See Abdul ai , 239 F. 3d at554. W e have n o ted th a t th e B IA ’s p rio r d e c isio n s e s ta b lish th a t itis rea so n ab le t o ex p ec t an a p p li ca n t t o co rrob o rate fa cts “w h ich are c e n tr a l to h is o r h e r c la im a n d e a s ily su b je c t to v e ri f

ic a tio n .” See i d. W e obs er ved i n A bdul ai , w ith o u t ex p re ss in g a g re e m e n t, 6 t hatt he B I A has i ncl uded i n t hi s cat egory“evi dence of an appl i cant ’ s pl ace of bi r t h, m edi a ac count s of l ar ge demonst r at i ons , evi dence of a publ i cl yhel d offi ce, or docum entat i o n o

f m edi cal tr eatm ent

. ” See i d. (em p h asis ad d ed ).

W hi l e ouranal y s i s i n A bdul ai hi ghl i ght s t he fa ctt hatt he B I A m i ghtper m i s s i bl y see k corr obor at i on fr om V oci conce rnin g hi s pas tm edi cal t r eatm ent , ourhol di ng i n A bdul ai al s o i l l us t r at es w hyt hi s cas e mustbe r emanded forfur t her21 pr ocee di ngs . I n Abdul ai , w e n o ted th a t th e B IA ’s r u le conce r ni ng cor r obor at i on cont empl at es a t hr ee- par ti nqui r y : ( 1) an i dent i fi cat i on of t he fac t s forw hi ch “i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec t corr obor at ion ;” ( 2) an i nqui r yas t o w hethert he appl i canthas pr ovi ded i nfor m at i on corr obor at i ng t he r el evant fac t s ; and i f he ors he has not , ( 3) an ana l y s i s of w hethert he appl i canthas a d e q u a te ly ex p la in e d h is o r h e r f a ilu re to d o s o . See i d. at554. T he go v ernm entar gued i n A bdulai th a t th e p e tit io n e r sh o u ld have s ubm i t t ed m edi cal r ecor ds r el at i ng t o hi s hos pi t al s t ayaft er b e in g re le a s e d f

ro m m ilita ry d e te n tio n . S e e i d. a t5 5 5

. We d ec lin e d to ru le on the issu e b ec au se w e f o u n d that the B IA ’s o p inion ad d resse d o n lythe s ec o n d ele m en t of the th ree -pa rt i nqui r ydes cr i bed above , and di d s o us i ng gener al l anguage t hat fai l ed t o i dent i fyt he s peci fi c fa ct s forw hi ch the B IA s ought a d d itio n a l c o rr o b o ra tio n . See A bdul ai , 2 3 9 F

. 3 d a t5 5 5

. We s t a t e d “ [ t ] h o u g h we a r e u n c e r t a i n whe th e ri twou l d be r eas on a b l e t o h o l d A bdul ai ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ocur e N i ger i an hos pi t al r ecor ds agai ns thi m ( as s um i ng su ch r ecor ds even e xi s t ) , t hat conce r n i s ul t i m at el y bes i de t he poi nt

. B eca us e t he B I A never sta ted w h ich a sp e c ts of h is sto ry it w o u ld h a v e b e e n re a so n a b le t o corr obor at e, w e have no w ayof r evi ew i ng t he B oar d’ s actual r eas oni ng. ” I

d. W e c o n clud ed that “[ b ]ec au se th e B IA ’s fa il u re of expl anat i on m akes i t i m pos s i bl e for us t o r evi ew i t s r at i onal e, w e g ran t A b d u l ai’s pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew , v ac ate the B o ard ’s ord er, and r emand the m at t er t o i t for fur t her pr ocee d ing s cons i s t ent w i t h t hi s opi ni on. ” I

d.

H ere, t he B IA t hroug h i t s opini on has prov i ded even l essOur viewis reinforc ed by the fa ct that the IJ ’s conc ern 7 reg ardingVoci’s f

ailure to providemedical records may have arisen in the c ontextof the IJ ’s broa der attack on Voc i’s cre dibility . T h e B IAd i s a gr e e d

w i thth e IJ ’ s a dv e r s e c r e d i b i l i ty f i n d i n g . In the sec irc ums tanc e s, wec an d o li ttl e more tha n s pe c ulate c on c e rn ingwh at w e ight, if any , th e B IA p la c e d o n V oc i’ s f a ilureto int ro du c e Alba

nia n h os pit a l r e c ords in s up po rt of his oth e rw ise cre dible testimony

. Cf. W u v . A sh c ro

ft , 393 F.3d 418, 425 ( 3d Cir. 20 05 ) ( “ [W]he re , a s h e re , th e Immi gra tio n Judg e fi nd s a

wi tne ss t o be credible, but then re nders a decision that is contra

ry to that testimony without explaining why , we c annot say at this point that such a de cision is supported by substantial evidence ”). 22 i nfor m at i on t han w as pr ovi ded i n A bdul ai

. I t i s noteven c l ear fr om t he B I A ’ s opi ni on w hether t he B I A bel i eved t hatV oci had fai l ed t o pr ovi de adequat e cor r obor at i on, and t he B I A ’ s opi ni on d o e s n o t ap p lyth e th re e - p a rt in q u iryth a t w e d isc u ss e d in A bdul ai

. In th is situa tio n , it w o u ld b e im p ro p e r fo r us to s p e c u la te a s to w h e th e r th e B IA , su b sile n tio , bel i eved thatV oci h a d n o t s h o w n p a st p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se h e f a iled a d e q u a telyto corr obor at e hi s t es t i m ony . I ns t ead, t o t he ext entt hatV oci ’ s l ack o f d o c u m e n tar yc o rro b o ra tio n f o r h is te stim o n ym a yre f lec t a f a i l u r e o n Voc i ’ s p a r t t o c a r r y h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f , i t r a i s e s an i s s ue thatcan and shoul d be addr es s ed expl i ci t l ybyt he age ncy upon r emand. 7

C . C hang e d C ount r y C ondi t i ons A l ong w i t h t he tw o t heor i es di s cus s ed above , t he23 gover nm ent a lso cont ends t hatt he B I A ’ s deci s i on s houl d be aff i r m ed on the bas i s o f ch anged c ount r ycondi t i ons . T he g o vernm entar gues t hatcondi t i ons i n A l bani a have i m pr oved s uch thatt her e i s no l onger an obj ect i ve basi s fora w el l

- founded fea rof per s ecuti o n i f V oci w er e r etur ned. T he I J ’ s deci s i on i ncluded a fin d ing thateven i f V oci had ex peri enced past per s ecut i on i n A l bani a, countr ycondi t i o n s in A l bani a had change d t o t he poi nt w her e V oci no l ongerhad a w el l

- founded f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . T h e IJ s tate d th a t b a se d o n th is fi ndi ng, as an al t er nat i ve gr ound forhi s deci s i on, he w oul d deny r el ief pur s uantt o 8 C

. F. R

. § 208. 13. T hi s r egul at i on i ndi cat es t hatw her e an a s y l um appl i canthas es t abl i s hed pastper s ecut i on, t he exi s t ence of t hat per s ecut i on gi ves r i s e t o a pr es um pt i on t hat th e a p p lic a n t h a s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See 8 C

. F. R

. § 208. 13( b) ( 1)

. T hi s pr es um pt i on m ay be r ebut t ed, how ever , i f t he gover nm ent es t abl i s hes , bya pr eponder ance of th e e v id e n c e , tha t th e re h a s b e e n “ a f u n d a m e n tal c h a n g e in c i rcum st ances s uch t hat t he appli cant no l on ger has a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n ” in h is o r h e r h o m e c o u n tr y . See 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 1 )( i) -( ii)

. U nfo rtun at el y , t he B IA ’s app roach, as r efl ect ed in i ts opi ni on, pr event s us fr om r eaching t he mer i t s of t he gover nm ent ’ s ar gum ent conce r ni ng change d countr ycondi t i ons in A lban ia. T h e B IA elec ted to q u esti o n so m e a sp ec ts of the IJ’s a n a ly sis , w hil e a f

f irm in g , u sin g v e ryg e n e ra l lan g u a g e , the re su lt t he I J r eac hed. I n t hi s s i tuat i on, w e cannots i m pl yas s um e that t he B I A s om ehow adopt ed the I J ’ s change d condi t i ons24 r eas oni ng w i t houtexpl i ci t l yr efe r r i ng t o t he i s s ue, and w i t hout di s cus s i ng oracknow ledgi ng t he fr amew or k fort he cha nged c o n d itio n s in q u ir yth a t is e s ta b lis h e d b y8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3

. W e have emphasi zed thatunder 8 C

. F. R

. § 208. 13, “[t ] he b u rd e n o f

p ro o f in a c h a n g e d -c o u n try -c o n d iti o n s re b u ttal is s quar el yon t he governm ent [. ] ” See Ber is haj , 378 at 3 2 8

. T he IJ e x p licitly re f

e re n c e d 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is change d- count r y - condi t i ons anal y s i s , and s tat ed thatfor purpos es of t hi s anal y s i s he w as as s um i ng t hatV oci had i ndeed e sta b lish e d th e e x iste n c e o f p a st p e rse c u tio n . T h e se sta tem e n ts s uppor tan i nfer ence t hat t he IJ under s t ood t hatt he governm ent bor e t he burde n of proof on t he changed condi t i ons i nqui r y , and t hathe bel i eved the evi dence cont ai ned i n t h e re cor d s at i s fi ed t he governm ent ’ s b u rden. I n contr as t , t he B I A ’ s opi ni on does not r efe r ence 8 C

. F. R

. § 208. 13, and does not di s cu ss the p o ssibil ityo f c h an g ed co u n tryco n d it ion s in A lban ia. T h e B IA s t at es t hat“the r es pondenthas n o tdemonst r at ed thathe has s uffe r ed pas t per s ecut i on i n hi s nat i ve A l bani a, ” buti t s opi ni on p ro v id e s n o b a sis f

o r a ss u m in g th a t itu se d th e s a m e a n a ly sis us ed by t he IJ

. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatt he B I A ( 1) as s um ed t hatV oci had expe r i ence d p ast per s ecut i on, ( 2) s hi ft ed the bur den of pr oo f conc erni ng change d countr ycondi t i ons t o t he gover nm ent , and then ( 3) anal y zed w hethert he r ecor d evi dence pr ovi ded a bas i s for hol di ng t hat t he governm ent ha d sat i s fi ed t hi s bur den. I n t he abs ence of s uch ana ly sis, it w oul d be i n a p p r o p r i a t e f

o ru s t o a t t r i b u t e t h e I J ’ s r e a s o n i n g t o t h e BI A. See IN S v. V entura , 5 3 7 U .S . 1 2 , 1 7 -1 8 (2 0 0 2 ) (s u m m a rily25 r ev ersing N i nt h C i r cui tand hol di ng t hatcour tof appe al s m ay notaddr es s i s s ue of c hanged c ount r ycondi t i ons in i ns t ance w her e thati s s ue w as addr es s ed by t he IJ , but w as not r eac hed by the B IA ). Instea d , to the ex tent the q u esti o n o f c h an g ed co u n try co n d it ion s in A lban ia ha s a p o tential b e a ri n g o n V o ci’s a p p lica tio n f

o r re lief , w e m u st r e m a n d to th e B IA in o rd e r to per m i t t he B I A t o as s es s t he i s s ue i n l i ght of i t s ow n expert i s e. See V entura , 5 3 7 U .S . at 1 7 -1 8 ; se e a lso A m a n fi v . A sh c ro

ft , 328 F. 3d 719, 730 ( 3d C i r . 2003 ) (rem andi ng t o B I A for d e ter m in a tio n o f

w h e th e r a p p lica n t h a d p re se n ted c re d ib le t es t i m onyi n s uppor t of hi s cl ai m , i n i ns t ance w her e I J had made ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination an d B IA h ad af firm ed IJ’s h o ld in g o n a lte rn a te g ro u n d ).

I V. CO NC L US I ON
For t he r eas ons di s cus s ed above , V oci ’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew i s gr ant ed, a n d the cas e i s r emanded t o t he B I A for f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .