Opinion ID: 2978834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Asylum Based on Humanitarian Concerns

Text: As stated above, in addition to the adverse credibility determination, the IJ made an alternative finding that changed conditions in Albania negated any fear on Sanaj’s part of future persecution. In response, Sanaj points to authority standing for the proposition that, in some cases, a petitioner’s past experiences may be so horrible that he should never be forced to return to his country of origin regardless of whether the country has changed. He thus argues that his family’s experiences, especially the kidnapping of his son and the rape of his wife, are of such extreme degree that no change in conditions can justify sending them back to Albania. To be sure, the kidnapping of a child and rape of a spouse are horrifying events. However, the IJ’s changed country condition finding was in the alternative to the adverse credibility finding. As the adverse credibility finding is sufficient to defeat Sanaj’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and as we have already affirmed that finding, we need not address Sanaj’s assertion of humanitarian considerations. D. Protection Under the Convention Against Torture Sanaj claims that the Board failed to consider his claim for protection under the Convention properly, instead impermissibly relying upon the IJ’s adverse credibility finding to affirm the IJ’s denial of protection under the Convention. Regardless of whether it is true that it was error for the Board to rely on the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for purposes of reviewing Sanaj’s claim for protection under the Convention, in this case we are reviewing the IJ’s decision, as adopted by the Board. A review of the IJ’s decision reveals that the IJ considered the Convention claim on its merits and found that Sanaj had not produced evidence that he would more likely than not be tortured upon return to Albania, which is the required showing under the Convention. 8 CFR § No. 09-3461 Sanaj v. Holder Page 12 208.16. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence based on our own review of the record, so we affirm the denial of protection under the Convention.