Ylli Sina v. Alberto R. Gonzales
476 F.3d 459
7th Cir.
2007
Check Treatment
Docket
KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Ylli Sina brings a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applicаtion for asylum and ordering his removal. He argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination lacked substantial evidence and thаt substantial evidence supported his claim of persecution. We deny the petition for review.

I. HISTORY

Sina, a native and citizеn of Albania, testified to the following before the IJ. He was a member of the Democratic Party of Albania from 1992 through October 1998. His membership in the Democratic Party and family connections resulted in a position as driver and assistant to Judge Agim Bendo from 1994 through 1996. His work for Judge Bendo included picking up the judge in the morning for work, attending meetings, and assisting the judge with his paperwork and files. In 1994, Judge Ben-dо found Fatos Nano, a former Prime Minister of Albania, guilty of corruption and sentenced Nano to thirteen years’ imprisonment. Sina witnessed the Nano trial.

The Socialist Party in Albania won elections in 1997 resulting in Nano being released from prison and returning to pоlitical power. Nano attempted to have the Albanian courts overturn his prior conviction. Sina claims that beginning in June 1997, hе was approached by two men who asked him to go before an Albanian court on ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‍behalf of Nano and declarе that Nano’s conviction had been politically motivated. Sina believed that he was being targeted by Nano’s supporters because he had been close to Judge Bendo and was a trustworthy member of the Democratic Party. The men wore сivilian clothing and did not show official identification but Sina be *461 lieved that they were police officers due to the fact thаt their vehicle had official license plates. He refused to cooperate with the two men and the men respоnded by threatening that he would lose his job. The two men returned a second time in an attempt to persuade Sina to cooperate but again he refused.

Sina testified that he was physically attacked by police when he attended a Democratic Party rally of approximately 30,000 people in August 1998. He spent one week in the hospital recovering from thе beating. The two men came to the hospital threatening that he would be detained or killed if he did not go to court on behalf of Nano. Sina was fired from his job in October 1998, and the two men again appeared trying to pressure Sina to coopеrate. At this point, Sina went into hiding in Albania and then he came to the United States on December 31, 1998. Sina believes that he will be killed if hе returns to Albania. His father was killed while riding on a motorcycle but the case is still open in Albania. Nano was pardoned in 1999 but Sina bеlieves that he would still be in danger because of his previous refusals to cooperate.

Sina provided documents аttesting to his membership in the Democratic Party and his employment for Judge Bendo and newspaper articles to support his testimony. The IJ sought to verify the authenticity of Sina’s documents from the United States Embassy in Albania. The embassy reported that the doсuments were fraudulent. The IJ also determined that the newspaper accounts contradicted Sina’s testimony. Sina tried to еxplain that it was difficult to obtain proper documents ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‍and also tried to bolster his story with additional witnesses. The IJ rejected Sina’s explanation for the discrepancies in his documents finding his claim to be unconvincing and not credible and rejected his application. The BIA adopted the IJ’s decision with remarks supporting the IJ’s decision. Sina argues before us that (1) the IJ’s adverse credibility determination lacked substantive evidence, and (2) substantial evidence supports his claims of persecution.

II. ANALYSIS

“Whеn the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while supplementing the decision with its own reasoning, the IJ’s decision, as supplemented by the BIA’s deсision, becomes the basis for review.” Gjerazi v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 800, 807 (7th Cir.2006) (citing Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652, 655-56 (7th Cir.2004)). We must uphold the BIA’s denial of relief as long as it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Margos v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 593, 597 (7th Cir.2006) (quoting Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir.2005)). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusivе unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We perform ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‍a highly dеferential review of the IJ’s credibility determination in which we “look for substantial evidence” and “specific, cogent reasons that bear a legitimate nexus to the IJ’s finding.” Doumbia v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 957, 963 (7th Cir.2007) (citing Ayi v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 876, 880 (7th Cir.2006); Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir.2003)).

“In order to succeed on [a] claim for asylum, [the petitioner] must demonstrate thаt he is unable or unwilling to return to his country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Bejko v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 482, 484 (7th Cir.2006) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Hanaj v. Gon *462 zales, 446 F.3d 694, 698 (7th Cir.2006)). “Thе applicant bears the burden of proving that he is eligible for asylum.” Hernandez-Baena v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 720, 723 (7th Cir.2005) (citing Jamal-Daoud v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.2005); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)). “If the IJ finds the [applicant’s] testimony to be incredible, thеn a convincing explanation of the discrepancies or extrinsic — and ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‍credible — corroborating evidence is required. Without such an explanation or corroboration ... the applicant cannot meet his burden of proof and his asylum claim will fail.” Ca-pric v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1086 (7th Cir.2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

We agree that the IJ properly concluded that Sina was not credible. The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the submission of false documents, inconsistencies between Sina’s testimony and the Embassy Report, inconsistencies between Sina’s testimony and the newspaper articles tendered by Sina to support his claims, inconsistencies between Sina’s asylum declaration and his testimony and Sina’s inability to provide corroborating еvidence after his credibility was questioned. The IJ supported her credibility determination with “specific, cogent reasons that bore a legitimate nexus to that finding” and therefore we must affirm the decision of the IJ. Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 508 (7th Cir.2004). 1

III. CONCLUSION

We Deny the petition for review.

Notes

1

. The IJ also considered Sina's claims for asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture, assuming arguendo, that he was credible. We agree with the IJ's determination that Sina would be unable ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‍to demonstrate an entitlement to relief even if he had been found credible. However, as we are agreeing that the IJ properly found Sina to be incredible, we need not discuss this issue further.