Opinion ID: 2974634
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner’s Credibility

Text: Petitioner contends that he suffered past persecution in Albania on the basis of his political opinion and membership in the Democratic Party. In pertinent part, he argues that he was abducted, interrogated, and detained by police officers for forty-eight hours on two separate occasions – the first, during a demonstration on September 14, 1998, and the second while promoting a mayoral candidate in October 2000. He alleges that he was injured during both incidents, and that the injuries he sustained during his second detention were severe and required extensive medical treatment and surgery. Petitioner argues that his testimony at the evidentiary hearing and corroborating evidence 10 No. 05-4044 established his past persecution in Albania and support a reversal of the BIA and IJ decisions. For its part, the government argues that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that he endured past persecution because his hearing testimony 1) was vague, 2) was unsupported with independent evidence, and 3) conflicted with his airport statement.
The IJ’s decision and BIA’s affirmance both conclude that Petitioner’s hearing testimony was vague. A review of the record indicates that Petitioner was unable to proffer specific or detailed testimony concerning the September 1998 and October 2000 detentions. Although he claimed to have been abducted and detained for forty-eight hours by the police on both occasions, he could not offer any specific details about his abductions, interrogations and detentions. Even his testimony about the alleged police beating in October 2000 is cursory and without meaningful elaboration. Petitioner’s testimony simply failed to reveal details of, or insight into, why or how he was abducted in September 1998 and October 2000; his treatment during his forty-eight hour detentions; the conditions of his detentions; and the questions he was asked during his interrogations. Petitioner’s testimony was plainly vague and ambiguous. Petitioner failed to articulate meaningful responses to the questions he was asked at the hearing. This Court finds, therefore, that the IJ and BIA properly denied Petitioner’s immigration applications because his vague and ambiguous testimony supports a finding that his testimony is not credible.
The IJ and BIA decisions both conclude that Petitioner failed to corroborate his testimony with independent evidence. The record indicates that Petitioner produced some independent 11 No. 05-4044 evidence, namely, 1) the medical-legal report; 2) two hospital reports, dated November 21, 2000, and February 9, 2001; 3) a letter from a doctor in the United States affirming that Petitioner had a nose surgery to repair injuries sustained in Albania and was scheduled for another surgery; and 4) a declaration from an Albanian attorney. Petitioner’s submissions, however, fail to substantiate his testimony. Petitioner produced the medical-legal report to corroborate his testimony about being detained and beaten by police officers in October 2000. However, during his examination at the hearing, Petitioner simply could not explain the circumstances surrounding the medical-legal report, namely, he failed to explain exactly how or why the report was prepared, and whether it was related to a government investigation. The medical-legal report, therefore, does not corroborate Petitioner’s testimony. The Albanian medical records and the letter from the United States doctor indicate that Petitioner sustained nose injuries, but do not, and simply cannot, connect his injuries to a detention, beating, or incident of past persecution. Since Petitioner’s testimony did not provided specific facts and details about his detention and beating, how he sustained the injuries remains unclear. Petitioner produced the declaration from the Albanian attorney to substantiate his testimony about the October 2000 police beating. However, the declaration contradicts and undermines Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner affirmed that “right after [he] was released from the police station, [he] went to the emergency room,” (J.A. 75), to seek medical treatment for his injuries. Yet, the lawyer’s declaration indicates that he waited several days to seek medical treatment. Petitioner failed to reconcile this inconsistency. 12 No. 05-4044 Petitioner did not proffer adequate independent evidence to corroborate his alleged past persecution. He also failed to adequately connect his corroborating evidence to his testimony. In addition, although Petitioner avers a long history of involvement with the Democratic Party he failed to produce any evidence of his membership in the party. The Court finds that the IJ and BIA properly denied Petitioner’s immigration applications because his testimony lacked meaningful independent evidence.
The IJ and BIA decisions conclude that Petitioner’s hearing testimony conflicted with the statement he gave to immigration authorities at the airport on his arrival. Petitioner’s airport statement indicated he came to the United States to live and work, and to be reunited with his sister who lives in Michigan. Although Petitioner was not specifically asked if he had any problems with the police or with the socialist government in Albania, he declined to make any additional statements concerning the circumstances of his departure from Albania, and did not apprise the immigration officials of his alleged persecution. Although Petitioner challenges his airport statement, arguing that he was fatigued and misunderstood the questions, he “offers no other explanation for the inconsistencies that exist in these distinguishable testimonies.” (J.A. 130) During his interview at the airport, Petitioner was asked whether he had any problems with any person, groups, or organizations in Albania. Petitioner contends that, based on the interpreter’s translation, he understood the question to be about criminal groups and organization. He contends that the IJ and BIA should reconcile his testimony because any inconsistencies constitute “minor and irrelevant inconsistencies [which] cannot constitute the basis for an adverse credibility 13 No. 05-4044 determination.” Sylla, 388 F.3d at 924; Ahmed v. Gonzalez, 398 F.3d 722, 727 (6th Cir. 2005). This Court finds that the inconsistencies in the instant case cannot be likened to the minor and irrelevant inconsistencies the Court found in Sylla. In Sylla, the petitioner proffered inconsistent testimony about the amount of his political party membership fee, and the period during which he was a student. Sylla, 388 F.3d at 926. The Court found that “Sylla had little to gain in claiming to have paid fewer Guinean Francs as membership dues,” and that “his status as a non-student [did not] have any relationship to the reliability of his persecution claim.” Id. In the instant case, however, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was “based on issues that go to the heart of the [Petitioner’s] claim,” Sylla, 388 F.3d at 926, namely, whether he endured past persecution in Albania. Unlike the discrepancy in Sylla, the inconsistencies in the instant case can be “viewed as attempts by [Petitioner] to enhance his claims of persecution.” Daneshvar, 355 F.3d at 623 (quotation and citation omitted). The Court finds that the IJ and BIA properly denied Petitioner’s immigration applications because his inconsistent statements support a finding that his testimony was not credible. III. Petitioner’s Reasonable Fear of Future Persecution Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution because he has established past persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i); Ouda, 324 F.3d at 445. For its part, the government argues that Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution because he failed to establish past persecution. The government’s argument is well taken. Since Petitioner “did not sustain his burden of establishing that he suffered past persecution, he [is] not entitled to the 14 No. 05-4044 presumption under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i) of a well-founded fear of suffering future persecution.” Mikhailevitch, 146 F.3d at 389; Ouda, 324 F.3d at 445.