Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-19-2005
Lakja v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2853
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Lakja v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 95.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/95
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2853
ARDIAN LAKJA,
Petitioner
v.
*ALBERTO
R. GONZALES,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
*(Substituted pursuant to Fed. R. App. Rule 43(c))
Petition for Review of the Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A95-368-459)
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 16, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 19, 2005)
OPINION
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge
Ardian Lakja petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) which denied
Lakja’s application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Lakja, a native and citizen of Albania who entered the United
States on a forged passport in 2001, alleges that he was persecuted at the hands of the
Albanian socialist government due to his political opinions and membership in the
Democratic Party.
Lakja claims that as a result of his family’s commitment to the Democratic Party,
his father was imprisoned and his mother was sent to an internment camp for several
years. His brother was arrested and beaten for participating in a peaceful demonstration
against the Communist government. His brother left Albania and was subsequently
granted political asylum in the United States.
In 1998, Lakja became a member of the Democratic Party. He alleges that he was
persecuted on the basis of his political beliefs, but managed to escape police beatings
targeted at members of the Democratic Party. He also alleges that he was threatened for
his activities in two parliamentary elections. Some two years later, in October 2000,
Lakja handed out pamphlets during the local elections in conjunction with the Democratic
Party and, because of this activity, the police detained him for thirty hours. During the
detention, the police interrogated, threatened, and abused Lakja and told him that he
would be “eliminated” if he continued his political activities. A.R. at 247. In June 2001,
2
he received an anonymous package containing a bullet, the photograph of a person who
was previously killed for his political activity, and a letter stating that he would be killed
if he continued his political activity in conjunction with the June 24, 2001 parliamentary
election. Upon receipt of the letter, Lakja decided to go into hiding and subsequently left
Albania.
The IJ did not find Lakja credible. Lakja appealed to the BIA, which summarily
adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, adding only that Lakja had also not met his burden
of proof with respect to his claim under the CAT. This timely appeal followed.1
We review the IJ’s opinion and scrutinize her decision to see if it is supported by
substantial evidence. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 247 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion . . . .” Id. at 248.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence
to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The IJ stated five separate bases for her
adverse credibility finding. Three of these, including the inconsistency of the testimony
offered by Lakja, the timing of his becoming a member of the Democratic Party, and his
lack of knowledge about the Democratic Party, constitute substantial evidence supporting
1
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
3
the IJ’s finding.2
The inconsistent testimony offered by Lakja concerns the chronology of events
that Lakja alleges constitute persecution. Lakja was unsure of the dates of the elections in
which he participated and also contradicted himself in his testimony regarding when he
was arrested for this participation, first stating that he was arrested in June 2000 and then
testifying that he was arrested in October 2000. These inconsistencies go to the heart of
his claim that he was persecuted for his political beliefs and activities.
In addition, the IJ found that Lakja’s motivation to become a member of the
Democratic Party was questionable. Lakja did not join the Democratic Party when he
became eligible at age 18, but rather joined at the age of 20, shortly after his brother had
been granted political asylum in the United States based on his party membership. We
agree that the timing of Lakja’s membership is suspicious and supports the IJ’s doubts
regarding Lakja’s motivations for joining the party.
The IJ also found that Lakja’s complete ignorance regarding major political events
in Albania raised further questions about his commitment to the Democratic Party.
When the IJ questioned Lakja about recent elections in Albania, including the number of
contested positions in a given election, candidates for those positions, and the number of
2
The IJ’s adverse credibility finding has two additional
bases which are not supported by the record. Because the three
bases discussed constitute sufficient reason to deny Lakja’s
petition, we do not address the shortcomings of the two additional
bases.
4
Democrats elected, Lakja was unable to answer. The IJ noted that Lakja lived with his
brother who was a committed Democratic Party member and that Lakja had the time and
opportunity to stay abreast of current political activities which he failed to do.
Lakja argues that he has met his burden to show past persecution because the IJ
accepted as true his recounting of the events preceding 1997. However, the events
preceding 1997 were events that happened to his family, and not to Lakja himself. This
court has held that absent a showing that the petitioner would be singled out, the
reasonableness of a fear of persecution is diminished when family members remain
unharmed in the country of origin. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005).
Lakja admitted that his parents and younger brother are still in Albania.
Because there is substantial evidence to support the IJ’s denial of Lakja’s claim for
asylum, we need not address his claim for withholding of removal. Balasubramanrim v.
INS, 143 F.3d 157, 161 n.8 (3d Cir. 1998). Lakja’s claim for relief under the CAT was
waived inasmuch as he failed to present a legal argument in support of his claim. See
Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418, 423 n.6 (3d Cir. 2005). We will deny the petition for
review.
5