Opinion ID: 2971719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: even if the presumption of well-founded fear

Text: ARISES FROM PAST PERSECUTION, A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN PETITIONER’S HOME COUNTRY MAKES HIS FEAR OF FUTURE PERSECUTION UNREASONABLE. In the absence of a showing of past persecution, courts need not examine existing country conditions. See Kurshimi v. Ashcroft, 102 Fed. Appx. 172, 176 (1st Cir. 2004); Beganovic v. Ashcroft, 116 Fed. Appx. 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2004). However, because the Immigration Judge specifically addressed the Government’s “changed conditions” argument in ruling on Petitioner’s application, and because the parties have addressed this 6 The Court notes that an immigration judge may deny an alien’s request for asylum simply based on the alien’s submission of a counterfeit document. See 8 U.S.C.A. §1158; Niang v. Ashcroft, 96 Fed. Appx. 341, 342 (6th Cir. 2004). Here, as indicated, the Immigration Judge specifically found Petitioner’s birth certificate to be fraudulent. Petitioner testified that his uncle went to Petitioner’s apartment to gather the information needed for the birth certificate after Petitioner was fired, but the birth certificate is dated before Petitioner was fired. Therefore, the Immigration Judge was justified in denying Petitioner’s claim for political asylum based solely on his determination of the falsity of his birth certificate. 16 issue in their appeal briefs, in the interest of completeness, we, too, will address the “changed conditions” argument. The presumption of well-founded fear established by evidence of past persecution is a rebuttable one and can be rebutted if it is shown that conditions have changed to such an extent that the asylum applicant no longer can have a well-founded fear of being persecuted if he were to return to his home country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(2003). However, to rebut the presumption, the government must do more than show that the circumstances in the country have drastically changed. Ouda v. INS, 324 F.3d 445, 452 (6th Cir. 2003). The government must also show that this change negates the particular applicant’s well-founded fear of persecution. Id. The Immigration Judge determined that the government met this standard in this case. The government presented evidence that a new Prime Minister, Pandeli Majko, was elected in Albania, and he has been described as generally more acceptable to the population, intent on bringing a new approach to the country’s political life. Furthermore, according to the State Department’s February 1998 Albania Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 (“Country Report”),7 which was presented to the Immigration Judge as part of the Government’s evidence in this case, there were no reports of killings based solely on persecution in 1998, i.e., the year after Petitioner left the country. The Country Report also states that a parliamentary commission drafted a 7 The 1998 Country Report and the 1998 report profiling Albanian asylum claims (discussed infra) were the most recent reports available at the time of Petitioner’s hearing