NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0450n.06
Filed: May 27, 2005
No. 04-3399
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
)
BLENDI HASANAJ, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN
) ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
Petitioner, ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS
)
v. )
)
ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General, )
)
Respondent. )
Before: KENNEDY and COOK, Circuit Judges; VARLAN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Petitioner Blendi Hasanaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Hasanaj
argues the BIA’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision violated due process, and that substantial
evidence did not support the IJ’s denial of his applications. For the following reasons, we deny the
petition.
*
The Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, sitting by designation.
No. 04-3399
Hasanaj v. Gonzales
We note initially that the BIA did not violate Hasanaj’s due-process rights in affirming the
IJ without opinion. See Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 731-32 (6th Cir. 2003) (BIA summary
affirmance appropriate in the absence of novel facts or substantial factual or legal issues). Because
the BIA affirmed the IJ without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. Id. at 730. We must
uphold the IJ’s factual findings unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s denial of asylum. The IJ found Hasanaj’s claims
regarding past and possible future persecution in Albania incredible, concluding that Hasanaj
testified inconsistently with statements in his asylum application. The IJ noted three points of
discrepancy, all of which are supported by the record.
First, petitioner testified that in June 1997 he was beaten by uniformed policemen—but his
asylum application stated he was beaten by socialist criminal bands. Asked to explain the
discrepancy, petitioner testified that the “socialist criminal bands” were policemen. The IJ found
this explanation unpersuasive.
Second, petitioner testified that police broke his nose during a February 1999 rally to
celebrate the Democratic Party’s anniversary. But in his asylum application, he stated that the rally
was in remembrance of “the December 1990 and the Students’ Movement against the communist
regime.” Asked to explain, petitioner testified that the Democratic Party was founded on December
-2-
No. 04-3399
Hasanaj v. Gonzales
8, 1991. The IJ noted that this discrepancy was not significant, but raised questions about the
petitioner’s testimony.
Third, petitioner testified that he was arrested and detained in June 2000, while his asylum
application states this occurred on September 16, 1999. Asked to explain, petitioner attributed the
date on his application to typographical error. The IJ found this unsatisfactory, because the date on
the application was complete with month, day, and year, and his testimony was less complete.
At least the first and third of these discrepancies go to the heart of petitioner’s claim, and
support the IJ’s conclusion that Hasanaj’s testimony was incredible. We therefore affirm the denial
of asylum. See Sylla v. INS, 388 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility finding must be
based upon inconsistencies going to the heart of petitioner’s claim). And having failed to meet the
standards for asylum, petitioner necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standards for
withholding of removal. Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 1998). His application
for protection under the Convention Against Torture likewise fails without the support of his
testimony.
For these reasons, we affirm the BIA and deny Hasanaj’s petition for review.
-3-