Opinion ID: 3015008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Immigration Court’s Decision

Text: In her oral decision, the immigration judge reviewed Durasevic’s asylum application and testimony. (A50-53.) The immigration judge found, after reviewing the written submissions, testimony, and background documentation submitted in support of Durasevic’s application, that he had not established that he has a “well-founded fear” of future persecution if he were to be returned to Montenegro. (A53.) The IJ concluded that Durasevic had not “presented a believable, consistent and sufficiently detailed claim as to provide a plausible and coherent account of persecution within the meaning of the Act.” (A53.) The IJ noted that “the meager testimony provided by this respondent is somewhat contradictory from his written submission and he’s offered no plausible explanations for the major discrepancies.” (A53.) In particular, the immigration judge noted that Durasevic had testified that his house had been ransacked for weapons and he and his father were attacked on October, 19 2000, but he had stated in his asylum application that 6 this episode had occurred on January 11, 2000. (A53-54.) The immigration judge noted that Durasevic had offered no explanation for this discrepancy beyond saying that he was nervous and had made a mistake. (A54.) The immigration judge concluded that Durasevic had presented “merely a whisper of a claim.” (Trans. of Oral Decision at A54.) The immigration judge also noted that the country conditions report generated by the Department of State did not support Durasevic’s claims, finding that conditions in Montenegro had stabilized and that Albanians “are a functioning intrical [sic] part of this society.” (Trans. of Oral Decision at A54.) The IJ concluded that the totality of Durasevic’s presentation did not support a grant of political asylum in the United States; that consequently he had failed to meet the higher standard of withholding of removal; and that he had not articulated any basis nor presented any evidence supporting relief under the Convention Against Torture. (A54-55.) The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision in a single paragraph opinion. (A02.)