Opinion ID: 790608
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Changed Country Conditions and the Absence of Corroboration

Text: 16 The second issue raised in the petition is that the BIA erred by concluding that even if the Litis were credible, they were not entitled to relief in light of the fundamentally changed conditions in Albania and the absence of reasonably available corroborating evidence. Upon review of the record, we hold that the BIA's decision is supported by substantial evidence. 17 Because the Litis were granted asylum in Germany in 1990, the Government stipulated to the fact that the Litis suffered past persecution based on a statutorily protected ground, which entitles them to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Where an Albanian asylum applicant has demonstrated past persecution based on the applicant's anti-communist activities, the collapse of the communist regime may be a sufficient change in country conditions to rebut that presumption. See, e.g., Delaj v. INS, No. 02-3797, 2004 WL 1791474, at  (6th Cir. Aug.6, 2004); Tanazi v. Ashcroft, No. 02-4200, 2004 WL 1770617, at  (6th Cir. Aug.5, 2004); Potka v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3654, 2003 WL 21054683, at  (6th Cir. May 6, 2003). Thus, to establish their asylum claim, the Litis must demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution notwithstanding the political change which has occurred in Albania since they left in 1990. 18 In support of their claim, the Litis introduced several newspaper articles and reports detailing the conditions in Albania. Though the documents submitted by the Litis detail a number of instances of violence, corruption, and protest within the country, nothing specifically supports their claim that were they to return, they would be persecuted for their anti-communist opinions. Instead, the Litis' evidence describe[s] the type of general civil disorder and lawlessness to which anyone living in Albania would be exposed. Mullai v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 635, 639 (6th Cir.2004). The country reports submitted by the Government reinforce that conclusion. The State Department's 1999 country report states that [t]here were no confirmed cases of political killings by the Government, despite repeated claims by the main opposition party that its members were harassed, beaten, and sometimes murdered by government agents. J.A. at 252 (1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices at 2). The report also notes that [t]here were no confirmed reports of politically motivated disappearances nor any clear cases of detainees being held for strictly political reasons. J.A. at 253, 255 (1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices at 3, 5). In a 1998 report, the State Department explains that [a]pplicants [for asylum] frequently and incorrectly seek to portray the socialist government as `Communist' and actively targeting supporters of the opposition. J.A. at 268 (Albania — Profile of Asylum Claims & Country Conditions Addendum). The report notes, however, that Democratic Party members were indeed the victims of numerous attacks and murders, but in Albania's general atmosphere of lawlessness and lax law enforcement, neither culprits nor motives were ever found or confirmed for most of these crimes. J.A. at 268 (Albania — Profile of Asylum Claims & Country Conditions Addendum). 19 The most compelling evidence the Litis presented in support of a well-founded fear of future political persecution was their own testimony that a fellow anti-communist protester, who participated in the embassy break-in and was granted asylum in Germany, was murdered by the communists upon his return to Albania. The IJ discounted the testimony, however, because the Litis failed to present any evidence corroborating either the murder or the motive behind it. In their brief, the Litis argue that written corroboration is not required since [t]he testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). While recognizing that corroboration is not required, we have also stated that even if the applicant is credible, [t]he absence of [reasonably available] corroborating evidence can lead to a finding that an applicant has failed to meet her burden of proof. Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted). In this case, the IJ found that corroborating evidence was reasonably available to the Litis, yet not provided. Specifically, though they have family members still living in Albania, the Litis failed to provide any affidavits in support of their claim of persecution of anti-communists by members of the current government. Moreover, though Liti is in frequent contact with his brother, who lives in Greece and works as a journalist documenting the injustices in Albania, the Litis failed to provide an affidavit or a newspaper article written by the brother to bolster their claims of a well-founded fear of political persecution. Furthermore, at the removal hearing, the Litis did not provide any reasonable explanation for the absence of any corroborating evidence. Without such evidence, we agree with the BIA that in light of the fundamentally changed conditions in Albania, the Litis failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution if they were to return. Therefore, we conclude that the BIA's decision denying the Litis' asylum claim was supported by substantial evidence. 20