Opinion ID: 2976371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refugee Asylum and Withholding of Removal

Text: In order to be eligible for asylum, the applicant must demonstrate that: (1) he is a refugee as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); and (2) he “merits a favorable exercise of discretion by the Attorney General.” Perkovic v. INS, 33 F.3d 615, 620 (6th Cir. 1994). The applicant bears the burden of proof of demonstrating either past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)-(b) (1997). An applicant’s testimony, if credible, can be, by itself, “sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (1997). An applicant who establishes past -9- No. 07-3499 Djokovic v. Mukasey persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i) (1997). The presumption may be rebutted by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that since the persecution occurred, conditions in the applicant’s country have changed to such an extent that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of being persecuted if he were to return. Ibid.
Because we affirm the IJ’s decision on the narrow grounds of changed country conditions, we need not formally review her adverse credibility finding or her finding that the alleged events did not arise to the level of persecution.
Whether country conditions have changed sufficiently to rebut the presumption of a wellfounded fear is a finding of fact, which we review under the deferential abuse-of-discretion and substantial-evidence standards. An IJ’s finding of changed country conditions is deemed “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). As evidence of changed country conditions, DHS submitted the 1999, 2003, and 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Serbia and Montenegro. Eight pages of the 1999 report detailed the conditions in Montenegro. There were some reports of abuses committed by the federal VJ (Yugoslavian Army) troops stationed in Montenegro, including abductions and detentions of Kosovar refugees and extrajudicial killings. U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Reports on Human - 10 - No. 07-3499 Djokovic v. Mukasey Rights Practices for Serbia-Montenegro – 1999, 35-36 (Feb. 23, 2000) [hereinafter 1999 Report]. The 2003 and 2004 reports, however, demonstrated significant improvements in the conditions. U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Serbia-Montenegro – 2003 (Feb. 25, 2004) [hereinafter 2003 Report]; U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Serbia-Montenegro – 2004 (Feb. 28, 2005) [hereinafter 2004 Report]. For example there were no reports of politically motivated killings or disappearances in 2003 or 2004. 2003 Report, 41 and 2004 Report, 34. The 2003 and 2004 reports also noted that while there were still reports of police occasionally beating suspects during arrest or detention, there were fewer reports than in previous years. 2003 Report at 41 and 2004 Report at 34. The sections on “National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities” did not even mention the Albanian minority, but rather focused the problems encountered by Romanis and Bosniaks.4 2003 Report at 48 and 2004 Report at 40-41. The IJ noted the changed country conditions, citing the lack of politically motivated killings, disappearances, or detentions. J.A. 82. The IJ also noted that many of the events that happened to Djokovic and his family occurred under Slobodan Milosevic’s regime and that Milosevic was no longer in power. Though the IJ based her finding primarily on the country reports, this does not mean her decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Shasha v. Gonzales, 227 F. App’x 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2007) (“This Court has consistently held that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that country reports detailing the regime change in Iraq rebut any presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution based on past persecution on account of Christianity.”); see also 4 “Bosnian” refers to citizens of Bosnia, regardless of ethnicity. “Bosniak,” however, is an ethnicity. - 11 - No. 07-3499 Djokovic v. Mukasey Gojani v. Mukasey, No. 06-3951, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4229,  (6th Cir. Feb. 20, 2008) (upholding a finding of changed country conditions even though the IJ “relied principally on the State Department's Country Reports regarding the human rights situation in Kosovo.”). The IJ’s findings also comported with past precedent. See, e.g., Micakovic v. Ashcroft, 85 F. App’x 424, 425-426 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The IJ noted that, according to the State Department Country Report, ethnic Albanians were treated well in Montenegro, and concluded that [the applicant] should not fear returning there.”); Gjokic v. Ashcroft, 104 F. App’x 501, 506 (6th Cir. 2004) (“According to the State Department, ethnic Albanians are treated relatively well in Montenegro, and the evidence thus does not compel an immigration judge to conclude that petitioners have a well-founded fear of returning there.”). Djokovic responded by citing several articles discussing the conditions in Serbia and Montenegro. But these articles did not adequately distinguish conditions in Serbia and conditions in Montenegro, the former being much worse for ethnic Albanians. Furthermore, much of the criticism contained in the reports was directed at the lack of investigation into past abuses, as opposed to new allegations of recent abuses. The Amnesty International Report acknowledged the same: “There appeared to be a drop in the number of alleged instances of torture or ill-treatment by the police in 2004. Amnesty International is concerned, however, that allegations continued and investigations into previous allegations of police torture and ill-treatment remained seriously flawed.” Amnesty International, “Serbia and Montenegro: A Wasted Year. The Continuing Failure to Fulfill Key Human Rights Commitments Made to the Council of Europe,” (March 22, 2005), available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library. Furthermore, Djokovic did not submit any - 12 - No. 07-3499 Djokovic v. Mukasey individualized evidence that would tend to show that he would remain a target for persecution despite these changed country conditions. The immigration judge’s finding that Djokovic did not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on the changed country conditions in Montenegro was thus supported by substantial evidence.
In order to qualify for withholding of removal, Djokovic “must establish that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the country of removal.” Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 951 (6th Cir. 2004). This is a higher burden of proof than what is required for a claim of asylum. Because Djokovic could not establish his eligibility for asylum, it follows he could not “satisfy the more onerous burden for withholding of removal either.” Cutaj v. Gonzales, 206 F. App’x 485, 492 (6th Cir. 2006).