Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 43(c) (2), Ac ting Attorne y Gene ral Peter * D. Ke isl e r i s a

uto ma tic a lly

su bs tit ute fo r f or me r A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l A lbe rt o R. Go nza le s. The Honor able R. L eon Jordan, Senior United States District J udg e for the E astern D istrict ** of Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0778n.06 Filed: Nove mber 6, 2007 No. 06-3681 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT A L TI N B A K IU , Pe tit ion e r-

Ap pe lla nt, On Petition for Review fr om the v. B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls P ET ER D. K EI S L ER , A C TI NG A TT ORNEY * G ENERAL OF THE U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA Respondent-

Appellee
.

______________________________ Be fo re : BO GG S , C h i ef

J u d ge; KE NN E DY , C i rc u i tJ u d ge; J OR DA N, Di s t ri ct J u d ge ** KENN EDY, J. Altin Ba

kiu is an Albania

n national who illeg ally

enter ed the United States
a nd the re a ft e r re qu e ste d a sylum a nd wi thh old ing of re mov a l un de r t he I mmi g ra

tio n a nd Natio na lity Act. His re quest for asy lum a nd withholding of remova l w as denied by the immigration judg e, and the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals af

firmed the decision. The im migr ation judge also found that Mr. Ba kiu had f i l ed a fr ivolous application for a sy lum, and the B I A also af firmed this dec ision. Mr. Ba kiu ar gu es t h at t he dec ision to deny him asy lum and the finding of fr ivolousness were not supported by

substantial evidence . We disag ree , and ther efor e deny his petition for review
.Mr . B a kiu e xhibi te d co nf us ion re g a rd ing thi s time lin e . While Mr . B a kiu a lle g e d th a t hi s 1 problems beg an “six months afte r [hi s] family left,” J .A. at 89, which would have be en May 2001, thi s is in con sis te nt w ithhis mot he r’ s te sti mony , w hic h p la c e d h im w or kin g in Ita ly

un til Au g us t 2001, J .A. at 128. Mr. Bakiu made other ambiguous st atements reg arding this timeline. Mr. B akiu’s a sylum a pp lic a tio n s ta te d th a t he re tur ne d to Al ba

nia in Janu a

ry 20 00 , J.A. a t 20 4, a nd

he state d in the re moval proce eding s that he l ived i n I taly “until 2000, 2001,” J .A. at 98. He also stated in the remova l pr ocee dings, how ever , that he lef t Albania in Fe bruar

y 2003 and had lived in Alba nia for two y ear s prior to that time, which means he lived in Albania beg inning r oug hly in Febr uary 2001. 2 BACK GR OUND Al tin B a kiu , a c iti zen of Al ba nia , c la ime d th a t he ha d e nd ur e d p e r s e c ut ion

in A lba nia be c a us e of his immediate family ’s status. Most of Mr. Ba kiu’s immediate family

leg ally live in the United States. Mr. Ba

kiu’s mother, fathe r, and two of his sibling s won the diversity lottery , which entitled them to leg ally

live within the United S tates. J .A. at 128. They moved t o the Detr oit, Michiga n are a in October

2000. Petitioner did not come with them beca use families winning the diversity lottery
are only entitled to bring children unde r twenty -one, a nd Mr. B aki u wa s twenty -three . J .A. at 96. Mr. B akiu’s brothe r F atjon was a lso left behind in Albania, although it is not clea r whether it was beca use he w as too old or bec ause he was whe elcha ir-bound. J.A. at 125. At the time his family

emig rate d to the United States, Mr. B akiu w as l ega l l y living and
wo rk ingin Ita ly . J.A . at 12 8, 98
. He re tur ne d to Alba

nia ro ug hly in Au g us t 20 01 be c a us e he los t his job in Ita ly . J.A
. a t 12 8, 98
. He the n li ve d w ithhis g ra ndmot he r a nd br oth e r i n th e fa

mil y ho me wher e he g rewup. He a lleg ed that upon his retur n to Albania he w as per secute d. 1 Mr . Ba kiu c la ime d th a t he ha s b e e n p e rs e c ute d b e c a us e he ha s f

a mil y le g a lly liv ingwi thi n the United States. E.g. , J .A. at 89. He asser ted that, eve n though he was une mploy ed throug hout his tim e in Al ba

nia , ind ivi du a ls b e lie ve d h e ha d mo ne y be c a us e his fa mil y liv e d in the Un ite d St a te s. He c la ime d th a t the se ind ivi du a ls e xtor te d h im, a nd

if he re fu se d to g ive the m mo ne y , th e y be a t hi m.3

J.A. a t 89- 90 . M r. B a kiu

wa s p ur po rt e dly be a te n f ive tim e s f

or re fu sin g to p a y , a

nd purp or te dly pa id the e xtor tio nis ts m or e tha

n f ive tim e s. J.A. a t 90 -9 1. Th e a lle g e d b e a tin gs occu rred “in re mot e p l a c e s , i n , l e t ’ s s a y i n t h e w o o d s o r a f o r e s t , r e m o t e p l a c e s a n d t h e y u s [ e d ] f o r c e a g a i n s t [ h i m ] i n a n y, in all the way s. Until [he] a cce pted to g ive money . . . . [They beat him with] [ d]i ffe rent objec ts like steel boot, stone.” J .A. at 90. He asserted that even though he repor ted t he violence to the police, the police we re e ither ineff ectua l or ref

used t o help and the beating s continued. J.A. at 94-95, 205, 210. Whil e his pare nts had ini tially been se nding him ar ound $300 per month, they incre ased tha t amount incre mentally

until it rea ched $600 per month, a lleg edly to pa y the extortioni sts. J .A. at 121. Mr . B a kiu state s th a t he fl e d A lba

nia to e sc a pe pe rs e c uti on , a

nd on Ma rc h 2, 20 03 he ill e g a lly enter ed the United States throug h Miami I nterna tional Airport using a fr audulent visa. J.A. at 194. Mr . B a kiu

re qu e ste d asy

lum , all e g ing that he wa s bei ng e xtor te d a nd a bu se d in Al ba nia be c a us e his imm e diate fa

mil y wa s le g a lly

liv ingin t

he Un ite d St a te s and

it w a s th e re fo re pres um ed by his
a b u s e r s t h a th e w a s w e a l t h y. The immigr ation judge (I J ) denie d Mr. B akiu’ s p et i tion for asylum and withholding of
remova l. I t found that Mr. Bakiu was not cre dible beca use of inconsistenc ies betwe en his testimony and his application, as well as cont ra d i ct o ry evidenc e fr om the state depa rtment repor

ts and the experience of his family

members a

nd others in Albania. Additionally , it found t hat M r. B akiu had not c arr ied his bur den of proof. The I J also found that Mr. Ba kiu ha d filed a friv o l o u s as y lum application. Mr. Ba

kiu a sks us to re verse the I J ’s deter minations. Bec ause w e believe that the I J ’s decision that Mr. B akiu was inc redible a nd filed a frivolous application wa s supported by substantial evidenc e, we deny

his petition for review
.4 AN AL YSI S Mr. B akiu asser

ts on petition for review tha t the I J ’s denial of asylum was not supported by sub s t an t i al evidenc e. He also contends that the I J ’s dec ision that his application for asylum was f r i v o l o u s i s n o t s u

p p o rt e d b y s u

b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W e r e v i e w t h e B IA ’ s d e c i s i o n , a n d w h e n t h e B IA adopts the I J ’s dec ision, we revie w the I J ’s dec ision directly
. Ha sa n v . A sh c ro ft , 397 F.3d 417, 419 (6th Cir. 2005). Mr. B akiu claimed a sy lum under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (I NA) , 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1) (2006) . An alien claiming such re lief bea rs the burde n of proving that he is a re fug ee, which is define d as a person unwilli ng to return to his native “ country beca use of pe rsec ution or a well-founde d fea

r of persec ution on acc ount of race, relig ion, nationality , membership in a par ticular social g roup, or political opinion. ” Id. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ). T h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e ap p l i ca n tca n b e e n o u gh to car ry his burden of proof, but it must be credible. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a ) (2006) . I f the a pplicant’s testimony is not credible, then c orrobor ative evide nce must be pr ovided. Id. A deter mination that the a pp lic a nt i s in c re dib le a nd

ha s not ca

rr ie d his bur de n of p ro of

is r e ve rs e d w he n “ a ny

re a so na ble adjudicator

would be compe lled to conclude to the c ontrary .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (B ) (2006)
. Mr. B a k iu a lso c laimed withholding of remova l under the I

NA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2006). An alien c laiming suc h relief bear s the burden of proving “that it is more li kely than not that he or she would be perse cuted on acc ount of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion upon remova l to [ his or her home ] country .” 8 C
. F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2) (2006). Mr. Bakiu was also found t o have submit ted a frivolous application for asylum. J .A. at 69- 70. Any alien adjudg ed to “ ha[ve] knowing ly made a frivolous application for asylum” is foreve rThe REAL I D Ac t of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, div. B , sec. 101, 119 Stat. 231, 303 2 (c od if ied as ame nd e d at 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (2 00 6) ), c ha ng e d th e sta

nd a rd g ov e rn ingc re dib ili ty deter minations. I ts provisions, however, do not a pply in this case , as t he effec tive date wa s Marc h 1, 2003 and the chang es apply only to applications filed on or after the effe ctive date
. Id. , 1 19 Sta t. at 304. 5 i n el i g ible for a

ny sort of immigration to the United States. Id. § 1 1 5 8 ( d ) ( 6 )
. “ [A ]n asy lum application is frivolous if any of its material elements is deliberately fabr icated.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2006). We conduc t substantial evidence revie w of fr ivolousness determinations. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). I . Denial of Asy lum Mr. B akiu ar g ues that his testimony was c redible, a

nd that he ca

rried his bu rd en o f proof. We e va luate e a c h a

rgume nt i n tu

rn , a nd fi nd that ne ith e r h a s me ri t. A. Cr e dib ili ty Mr . B a kiu

a ss ert s th at his te sti mony wa s c re dib le . Cr e dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns a re up he ld unless “any

rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 18 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). The I J must, however, g ive specific rea sons f or its determination. Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004). Additionally , the issues and inconsistenc ies that provide a basis for the deter mination must “g o to the hear t of the applicant’s claim,” and there fore cannot be “minor and irrele vant.” Id. 2 The I J ’s deter

mination that Mr. Ba

kiu w as incre dible is suppor ted by substantial evidence
. The main in c o n s is te n c ie s w h ic h s u p p o rte d th e ju d g me n t w e r e r e g a r d in g th e n a tu r e o f th e p o li ce depar tment’s response to Mr. Ba kiu’s complaint and the identity of the pe rpetrators. Mr. B akiu’s vag ue testimony

also signif

icantly supported the I J ’s deter

mination.6

M r . B a k i ur e l a t e d

i n c o n s i s t e n t s t o r i e s a

b o u th i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e p o l i c e d e p a rt m e n t
. In his a pp lic a tio n h e a lle g e d th a t w he n h e we nt t o th e po lic e , th e y “ re fu se [d] to tr

y a nd sto p [his neig hbors] from attacking[hi m] .” J.A. at 205. I ndeed, he asser ted that the extort i o n i sts had the “tac it support of the police.” J.A. at 210. I n his testimony at the re moval proce eding s, howeve r, Mr. Ba kiu stated that he re ported the extorti on and beatings to the pol ice, the police stated that they wer e “g oing to fix that problem,” w hich he took to mean that the police we re “ g oing to he lp,” and that the police neve r re fused to help him. J .A. at 91-95. He further intimated that the r eason he believed the pol i ce co u l d n o t protec t him was beca use he w as beaten the day afte r he ma de the r eport, a nd there fore he believe d that the police we re ine ffe ctual. J.A. at 91, 94. He did not, howeve r, pursue his init ial police re port nor did he make an additional complaint about the subsequent be ating . J .A. at 94. Th is i s an in c on sis te nc y str iki nga t “th e he a rt of the a pp lic a nt’ s cla im. ” An a

pp lic a nt h a s to prove that h e o r s h e is “una ble or unwilling to avail himself or he rself of the protec tion of” the
c o u n t r y f r o m w h i c h t h e a

p p l i c a n th a s f

l e d
. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( 2 0 0 6 )
. It m a t t e r s g r e a t l y, the re fo re , w he the r t

he po lic e tr

uly c ou ld n ot p ro te c t Mr
. B a kiu , or wh e the r the po lic e we re c omp lic it in the alleg ed per secution. Refusing to help and beingcomplicit in persec ution is m uch diffe rent t h a n r e c e i v i n g o n e r e p o rta n d n o f u rt h e r r e p o rt s o r

r e qu e s t s f

o r h e l p f r o m t h e c o mp l a i n i n g p a rt y. I nd e e d, Mr . B a kiu ’s te sti mony is n ot o nly

inc on sis te nt w ithhis a

pp licat ion, i t li ke ly

su pp or ts a finding that Mr. B akiu has not prove n that the police a re una ble or unwilling to he lp him with the
a lle g e d p e rs e c uti on

a nd the re fo re ha s n ot e sta

bli sh e d h is e lig ibi lity

fo r a sylum
. Mr
. B a kiu ’s te sti mony a t the re mov a l he a ri ng a bo ut t he ide nti ty

of his pe rs e c uto rs wa s a lso inconsistent with his asy lum application. He r epeatedly emphasized in his a sy lum a pplication that7

his neig hbors wer e extorting a nd beating him. J .A. at 210 (identifying his neig hbors as those who
cause d him ha

rm); J .A. at 210 (“ Ibelieve that my neig hbors think that since my family is in America, they must be rich and sinc e I

was alone, I was also vulnera ble because of the pol ice refusa l to protect me from them.” ); J .A. at 205 (“Iam af raid of my

neig hbors, they

have be en the c ulprits.”); J .A. at 235 (“H e said that pe ople in his neig hborhood knewthat his parents we re living in the United States and they wanted money from him for this rea son.”). Whil e testifying, how ever , Mr. B akiu stated the opposite; Mr. Ba

kiu insist ed that his extortioni sts were not his neighbor s and we re instea d ind ivi du a ls unk

no wn to him
. J.A. a t 10 2 (“ Th e y ’r e un kn ow n pe op le fr om me . . . . Ido n’ t kn owthe ir names, fir st na m es , l ast names.” ); J .A. at 103 (stating that the attac kers we re not his neig hbors). When give n a cha

nce to e x plain the d i s cr ep an cy , Mr. B akiu only stated that it could “may be” be explained by

the fa ct that he wa s n o t as k ed details in hi s application and pr ior interview or that “may be” he was “a littl e bit sc are d” and there fore did not “conc entra te[] [o] n all of the que stions.” J .A. at 115. This inc onsistency simil arly strikes at “the he art of the applicant’ s claim.” An a pplicant has to pr ov e that the pe rs e c uti on wa s “ on a c c ount of ” on e of the pr ote c te d g ro un ds in t he I NA . 8 C.F .R. § 1208.13(b)( 1) (2006) . “[T] he statute[, t h e ref ore,] makes motive cr itical, [so] he must provide some evidenc e of it, direc t or circ umstantial.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 50 2 U. S. 4 78 , 4 83 (1 99 2) (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . Mr. B a kiu

c la ime d th a t he wa s p e rs e c ute d b e c a us e he wa s p re su me d w e a lth y du e to h is imm e diate fa

mil y me mbe rs le g a lly

liv ing wi thi n the Un ite d Stat e s. Th e ide nti ty of his pe rs e c uto rs , the re fo re , is c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e a s to wh e the r or no t the y e xtor te d a nd be a t hi m be c a

us e of his membership in this alleg ed par ticular socia l gr oup. The fa ct that the extorti onists were his neig hbors would better suppor

t his claim; they

would at l ea s t be aw are that Mr. B akiu’s fa mily lived in the8

Un ite d S t a t e s . W h e n M r . B a k i u c h a n g e d h i s s t o r y t o h i s p e r s e c u t o r s b e i n g u n kn o w n t o him , h is asylum claim was substantially wea kened. H ow did he know that these unknown individuals were
e xtor tin g him be c a us e of the status of

his fa mil y ? He te sti fi e d th a t th e a tta c ke rs did kn owhis fa

mil y was in the United States, J .A. at 101, but he did not spe cify how he kne w that the attac kers kne w the location of his family , and he did not provide much of an ex planation for how the unknown attac kers g a ine d s uc h in fo rm a tio n. J.A. a t 101- 02 (“ Th e y we re ind ivi du a ls that kn e w that my fa mil y wa s in the Un ite d St a te s? . . . Th e y se nd ing so me oth e r i nd ivi du a ls t o, that I , unk no wn ind ivi du a ls t

ha t a sk me for what they want. .
. . I don’t know [ who t hey wer e]. They ’re unknown people from me.
. . . Ido n’ t kn owthe ir name s, fi rs t name , la st n a me s. ” ); J.A. a t 10 3 ( “ Ma y be oth e r p e op le that kn e w m e the y , th e y , th e se g uy s to ok the informa ti on fro m th e pe op le that kn owme a nd the y kn e w t ha t my pare nts were in the United States so that’s why they ’re asking me (indiscer nible) –” )
. I t c ou ld b e that Mr . B a kiu w as us ing tw o d if fe re nt d e fi nit ion s o f “ ne ig hb or .” On his application, Mr. B akiu could have m ea n t t hat his attacke rs wer e his “ne ighbor s” bec ause the ind ivi du a ls w e re a wa

re that hi s f

a mil y liv e d in the Un ite d Sta te s a nd ha d fo un d ou t th a t he we nt t o the police r eg ardingthe first attac k. “Ne ighbor ” in such a context would mean that it was a pe rson in Mr . Ba kiu ’s g e ne ra l vi c ini ty , n ot n e c e ssa ri ly so me on e he kn e w. I n h is t e sti mony , th e n, Mr . B a kiu could have re s isted the word “ neig hbor” be cause the questioners w ere focusing on whether Mr. Ba kiu kne w his attacker s, which sug g ests that the questioner believes a “neig hbor” to be someone Mr. B akiu would know. W h i l e t h i s is a rea sonable e x planation of the discr epanc y , we a re not compelled by the rec ord to c onclude that the I J was incorre ct in not so finding ; the I J ’s dec ision that Mr. B akiu was using the word “ neig hbor” in the same m anner , and that there fore his application was inconsistent with his t estimony , was supporte d by substantial evidence
.9

Mr. B akiu’s ver

y vag ue testi mony also g reatly supports the I J ’s findi ng that Mr. B akiu lacke d
cre dibilit y . An applica

nt must provide “ ‘c re d i b l e, dire ct, and sp e c ifi c e vid e nc e ’ ” of pa st perse cution or of the basis for the applicant’ s fea r of future perse cution. Kla witt e r v . I NS , 970 F.2d 1 4 9 , 1 5 3 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Ro dr igu e z- Ri v e ra v . I

NS , 848 F.2d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 1988) (per
c ur iam) ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d)
. Mr . Ba kiu fi rs t te sti fi e d th a t th e e xtor tio nis ts u se d “ vio le nc e ” a g a ins t him. J .A. at 89-90. When a sked what sorts of violenc e, he sta ted that it was “phy sical violence .” J .A. at 90. When aske d to be more spe cific, he stated: “The y are taking me [to] remote pla ces, le t’s say [t o] t he woods or a

fore st, r emote place s and they us[ed] forc e ag ainst me in a ny , in all the way s.” J .A. at 90. This was followed by him being a sked if he w as beaten, and Mr. B akiu answe ring in the aff irmative. W hen asked what he was beaten with, he said “Diffe rent objec ts like steel boot, stone.” J. A
. a t 9 0
. H e w a s t h e n a s k e d h o w m a n y t i m e s h e w a s b e a t e n , a n d h e r e p l i e d “ A n y t i me th a t I []
re fu s[e d] to g ive mon e y .” Whe n a sk e d to be mor e sp e c if ic , h e sa id t

hat he “ re me mbe r[s ] f

ive tim e s” and that he did not re fuse to pay the extortioni sts a ft er the fifth beating. When aske d how many times he had pa id his persec utors prior to f leeing the country , he stated that he “paid more than f ive times.” J .A. at 90-91. Th is sor t of t e sti mony

is v e ry va g ue a nd

la c kin g in d e ta il, a nd

it the re fo re pe rm its the I J to draw an infe renc e of inc redi b i l i t y . Despit e re peate dly being asked to e labora te, Mr. B akiu neve r descr ibed basic parts of his story which would be e asy

to relate if the eve nts had ac tually occur red. F or ins tanc e , h e ne ve r de sc ri be d how many ind ivi du a ls we re e xtor tin g him , how old

the ind ivi du a ls
we re , w he the r o r n ot i t w a s th e same g ro up of pe op le e a c h ti me , h owhe kn e w that th e e xtor tio nis ts
wer e aw are his family

was in the United States, whe ther he would g ive the extortionist s all the money his parents sent or

just partial sums, or whether he require d medical tre atment or sustained10

any sort of injury

from beingbeate n when he ref used t o pay . There are numerous other details that
c o u ld h a v e ma d e h is s to r

y more credible. Cf. Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 928-29. Ba sed on Mr. B akiu’s testimonial vag ueness, his i nconsistent statements reg arding the i dentity of hi s attacke rs, as well as his inconsistent statements reg ardingthe re action of the police, the I J ’s finding that Mr. B akiu was incre dible was supporte d by substantial evidence ; the rec ord does not compe l us to conclude that Mr. Ba kiu was cr edible. B. B urden of Proof Mr. B akiu next arg ues that the I J err ed in deny ing his c laim for asylum be cause he ca rried hi s b urd en o f pr oo f. W e revi ew the I J ’s deci si on for su bs tan ti al e vi den ce. 8 U.S .C . § 12 52 (b) (4) (B) (2006). The I J ’s decision here is suppor ted by substantial evidence beca use Mr. B akiu’s testimony
was c entra l to establishing his claim, and the I J found that testimony incre dible. C. W ithholding of Removal Mr . B a kiu

a lso pe tit ion e d f

or wi thh old ingof re mov a l unde r the I mmi g ratio n a nd Natio na lity Act (I NA), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3) (2006). Be cause Mr. Ba kiu failed to establish his elig ibilit y for asylum, “it therefor e follows that he c annot s atisfy the more string ent standar d for withholding of [removal].” Se e Kol iad

a v . I NS , 259 F.3d 482, 489 ( 6th Cir. 2001). I I . Fr ivolousness of the Application We reviewan I J ’s deter

mination that an asy lum application was f ri volous for substantial evidenc e. Sterkaj v. G onzales , 439 F.3d 273, 278 ( 6th Cir. 2006). This means upholding the I J ’s deter mination unless “any

rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C
. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) ( 2 0 0 6 )
. “ [A ]na s y lum a p p li c a ti o n is f

r iv o lo u s if

a n y o f it s mate r ia l11

elements is deliber ately fabr icated.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2006). I t must further be found that the “alien [] knowingly

made [the] frivolous application for a sy lum,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) ( 2006). Whil e it is a close que stion, the I J ’s deter mination that Mr. B akiu’s asy lum application was frivolous was supporte d by substantial evidenc e. The I J believed that Mr. Ba kiu fabric ated a

story
a b o u t b e i n g e x t o rt e d b e c a

u s e h e w a n t e d t o j o i n h i s f a m i l y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . J
. A
. a t 6 6
. T h e IJ relied on the State Depa

rtment’s Profile of Asy lum Claims, which desc ribed how ma ny Albanians fa br ic a te sto ri e s o f p e rs e c uti on a s a me a ns to le g a lly imm ig ra te to j oin fa mil ie s a lr e a dy

liv ingwi thi n the United States. J.A. at 191. The I J also relied on the fac t that Mr. Ba kiu was inconsistent about
cruc ial details and ve ry vag ue on other details that went to the heart of hi s application. L astly , the I J bel ie ve d it

lik e ly that Mr . B a kiu

de lib e rate ly

fa ls if ied in for ma tio n b e c a

us e Mr . B a kiu

fa ile d to apply for a sy lum in I taly

and F ranc e, two countries throug h which he traveled pr ior to enteringthe United States. J .A. at 55. While this i s not the strong est evidenc e fr om which the I J could infer a “del ib e r a te ” a n d “ kn o w in g []” f a ls if ic a ti o n , w e a r e n o t c o mp e ll e d b y th e r e c o r d to c o nclude the
c o n t r a r y.

CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, the pe tition for reviewis DENI ED.