Opinion ID: 2977687
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fundamental Change in Circumstance

Text: Even were this court to put aside the IJ’s credibility concerns and assume past persecution, the government has successfully rebutted any presumption of future persecution.12 11 But see Perkovic v. INS, 33 F.3d 615, 621 (6th Cir.1994) (“[T]he alien’s own testimony can be sufficient to support an application for asylum, ‘where the testimony is believable, consistent, and sufficiently detailed to provide a plausible and coherent account of the basis for his fear.’”). 12 The IJ held that Kolaj failed to show past persecution but did not provide any definitive explanation for this conclusion. (It appears, however, that the IJ may have intended to rely on the aforementioned lack of corroborative evidence.) Instead, for the purposes of a full analysis, he assumed Kolaj’s allegations did amount to past persecution and moved on to the government’s effort to show a change in country conditions. The court, therefore, follows the same methodology here. 10 Kolaj v. Mukasey Case No. 08-3543 To rebut the presumption of future persecution, the government submitted two State Department Country Reports. The IJ felt that these reports showed the required “fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of any of the five grounds . . . .” 8 C.F.R. §1208.16(b)(1)(i). Kolaj, however, argues that the government’s evidence “is insufficient to meet its burden.” Case law in this circuit establishes that State Department Country Reports can overcome the presumption of future persecution by showing a change in country conditions. See Mullai v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 635, 639 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that an IJ may rely on State Department Reports to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution).13 In this case the IJ looked at the most recent reports and numerous events that have occurred in the years since Kolaj left Kosovo. Among other things, a communist government no longer controls the former Yugoslavian state. Instead, pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) administers the region in cooperation with an 13 See also Gojani v. Mukasey, 266 F. App’x 420, 423 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished disposition) (citing the IJ’s principal reliance on State Department Country Reports to support his finding that conditions have changed in Kosovo); Duhanaj v. Gonzales, 250 F. App’x 681, 688 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished disposition) (“assuming arguendo the demonstration of past persecution” and citing State Department Reports to hold that substantial evidence supports “the IJ’s conclusion that petitioner does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to SerbiaMontenegro”); Rasi v. Gonzales, 179 F. App’x 284, 289 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished disposition) (reviewing Country Reports and holding that a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to reach a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s conclusion that “country conditions have ‘changed remarkably’ and that ‘Albanians from Kosovo upon their return are not subject to a pattern or practice of mistreatment’”); Koliada v. INS, 259 F.3d 482, 487 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “State Department reports on other countries are entitled to significant deference when assessing conditions there”). But see Koliada, 259 F.3d at 487 (acknowledging criticisms of State Department Reports). 11 Kolaj v. Mukasey Case No. 08-3543 Assembly dominated by ethnic Albanians. Furthermore, the political landscape is dominated by four Kosovo Albanian political parties and in 2006, in contrast to prior years, “there were no reports of the government or its agents committing arbitrary, unlawful killings.” Therefore, even assuming the past persecution Kolaj suffered creates a presumption of future persecution, the government rebutted this presumption by showing a fundamental change in country conditions. The evidence and arguments presented before this court do not compel a finding otherwise.