Cacani v. GonzalesCacani v. Gonzales
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Cook, Gilman, Sutton
Petitioner Muhamet Cacani petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals‘s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the
I.
After fleeing Albania with his family in 1999, Cacani illegally entered the United States. At the removal hearing, Cacani, as lead petitioner, described the following events to support his claim that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion.
From 1960 to 1965 and from 1971 to 1991, the Albanian Communist regime detained Cacani and his family in labor camps because they “were seen as opposing the Communist government” and because two relatives had escaped to the United States. After his release, Cacani joined the Democratic Party (DP) and “gave speeches and went from village to village in [Albania] spreading the concept of democracy through [his] speeches.” He testified that he “[spoke] out how the Socialist or Communist Party is and how the [DP] was freedom of rights on the brink.”
Cacani testified he was threatened on four occasions because of his DP activities.
The IJ denied Cacani‘s claims for relief, finding his testimony regarding the alleged past persecution not credible. The IJ also found that country conditions in Albania had changed since Cacani‘s alleged persecution.
II.
Because the BIA adopted the IJ‘s decision without issuing a separate opinion, we review the IJ‘s decision directly. Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir.2005). We will not disturb the decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (quotation omitted). Under this standard, the IJ‘s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Singh, 398 F.3d at 400 (quotation omitted);
III.
A. Asylum
The Act authorizes the Attorney General, in his discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who is a “refugee,”
The IJ found Cacani‘s testimony not credible because, among other things: the testimony regarding the interrogations was vague; Cacani presented no corroborating evidence of his DP membership, aside from a partially-translated membership card; the “activities” Cacani performed for the DP were not likely to have caused him problems; and Cacani‘s testimony contradicted the Albanian country reports. We need not evaluate the adverse-credibility determination, however,
In finding that conditions in Albania had changed, the IJ referenced the Department of State‘s 2001 Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions for Albania. That document states:
With the Socialist Party currently leading a coalition government, it is highly unlikely in today‘s circumstances that many applicants will have credible claims to political persecution.... There is virtually no evidence that individuals are targeted for mistreatment on political grounds. Far more prevalent is organized and amateur crime.... All political parties have been active in most of the country without a pattern of mistreatment, even during the dark days of 1997.
Though we have recognized “that State Department reports may be problematic sources on which to rely,” Mullai v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 635, 639 (6th Cir.2004), we have adopted “the view that such reports are generally the best source of information on conditions in foreign nations.” Id. (quotation omitted). And several recent cases from this court have held that changed country conditions in Albania rebut the presumption that an applicant “would be subject to future persecution upon removal or that he could have a well-founded fear of such future persecution.” Gjelaj v. Gonzales, 183 Fed.Appx. 490 (6th Cir. 2006); see Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 639-40 (6th Cir.2005) (finding changed circumstances and holding 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“); Mullai, 385 F.3d at 639 (noting that, with respect to an alien who entered the United States in October 1996, “changed country conditions rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution in Albania“); Linadi v. Gonzales, 167 Fed. Appx. 515, 518 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Finally, the IJ correctly took note of the changed conditions in Albania, citing a State Department report from 2001 as evidence ....“); see also Prifti v. Gonzales, No. 04-3909, 2005 WL 3113514, at *3, 2005 U.S.App. LEXIS 25144, at *5-6 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2005); Palaj v. INS, 134 Fed. Appx. 29, 33 (6th Cir.2005).
Cacani argues that in finding changed country conditions the IJ “erroneously focused on just one report of many ... in the record.” But the reports Cacani points to—other State Department documents and “reports from reputable human rights organizations“—do not compel us to conclude that the IJ‘s determination was wrong. First, the pre-2001 reports do nothing to rebut the manner in which the 2001 Profile, issued in May 2001, describes the changed conditions in Albania. Second, though many of these reports paint an unpleasant picture of the Albanian government‘s human rights record, they do not demonstrate that Cacani would face the requisite individualized threat of harm based on his political opinion. See Daneshvar, 355 F.3d at 625 (denying petition for review because although “many Iranian citizens may live in fear of persecution by the Islamic regime,” the petitioner “presented no credible evidence that he [would] be singled out for different treatment if he is deported back to Iran“). Accordingly,
B. Withholding of Removal and CAT Relief
Cacani also seeks review of the IJ‘s denial of withholding of removal under the Act. To obtain such relief, Cacani must show by a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir.1998);
To obtain withholding relief under the CAT, Cacani bears the burden of establishing that “it is more likely than not that he ... would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”
IV.
For these reasons we deny the petition for review.