[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10095 AUGUST 8, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A79-415-359
FRAN DREJAJ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 8, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Fran Drejaj petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his claims for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and
for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). After review, we deny
the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Drejaj’s Arrival
On August 19, 2001, Drejaj, a native and citizen of Albania, arrived in the
United States at the Miami International Airport seeking admission under the visa
waiver pilot program.1 Drejaj presented a false Slovenian passport.
Upon his arrival, Drejaj was interviewed by an Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”)2 officer. In a sworn statement, Drejaj stated that he
was a citizen of Albania and that the purpose of his entry was to apply for political
asylum and to rejoin his wife and children who were living in Detroit and awaiting
1
The visa waiver pilot program authorizes the Attorney General to waive the entry
document requirements for qualifying nationals of certain countries who are seeking temporary
admission to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. See INA § 217(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a);
8 C.F.R. §§ 217 et seq.
2
Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), the INS was abolished and its
functions transferred to the newly-created Department of Homeland Security. See Yang v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1200 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005). Because the proceedings against Drejaj
were initiated prior to enactment of the HSA, we refer to the agency as the INS.
2
their own asylum hearing. Drejaj indicated that he had never been arrested and
stated that he feared for his family’s safety in Albania because of “a mafia group or
criminals on the street” who would kill a person if he did not give them money.
When asked if he would like to add anything else, Drejaj replied, “I would like to
ask political asylum.” The INS then initiated immigration proceedings by filing a
Notice of Referral to an immigration judge (“IJ”).
B. Asylum Application
Drejaj filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the CAT, claiming persecution on account of his political opinion. Drejaj’s
application stated that he feared for his life if he returned to Albania because he
had been threatened by members of the Socialist Party (“SP”) – the former
Communist Party – due to his membership in the “Democratic Voting
Commission.” Further, on October 1, 2000, the police came and beat up
approximately twelve to thirteen people who belonged to the “Commission,”
including Drejaj. They were beaten because the police wanted the SP to win and
Drejaj and the other victims belonged to the Democratic Party (“DP”). The police
beat Drejaj with rubber sticks, and he had to be treated at a local hospital for
bruises on his back, arms, and shoulders.
Drejaj had been a member of the DP from 1990 until the time he left Albania
in 2001. Drejaj also noted that his wife’s father was jailed in Albania for eight
3
years for “political reasons,” that he feared persecution and torture upon being
returned to Albania, and that he could be imprisoned or killed.
To supplement his application, Drejaj submitted a letter from the secretary
of the Political Anticommunist Association (“PAA”), stating that Drejaj was a
member of the PAA and had participated in anticommunist demonstrations as early
as 1990. The letter detailed the Communist state security forces’ mistreatment of
Drejaj in 1991 and 1998 and stated that Drejaj’s family had their land seized and
“were denied the right of education, job, and shelter.” In addition, Drejaj
submitted a letter from the Chairman for District Kelmend, stating that Drejaj was
a resident of a village located in the district and that his family had been persecuted
by the Communists. The letter stated that Drejaj had been one of the earliest
activists in the democratic movement, and that when the SP came to power in
1997, he was a target of the police on account of his political activities. The letter
further stated that Drejaj had his house searched several times and that, as a result
of police mistreatment and threats, he was forced to leave the country.
Drejaj also submitted the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices for Albania for the years 2000, 2002 and 2003. According
to the 2003 Country Report: (1) Albania is a republic with a multiparty parliament
headed by a prime minister; (2) the SP and DP held most of the seats in Parliament;
(3) in October 2003, local elections were held throughout the country, which were
4
judged to be an improvement over previous elections, with only a few isolated
incidents of irregularities and violence; (4) although there were improvements, the
government’s human rights record remained poor in some areas; (5) while the
police occasionally arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals as well as
reportedly used excessive force against protesters, there were no political killings,
nor were there any reports of politically motivated disappearances; (6) the police
sometimes used threats, violence, and torture to extract confessions; and (7)
although the law required organizers to notify the police about gatherings in public
places and the police could refuse to permit such gathering for security and traffic
reasons, there were no reports of such denials being made arbitrarily, and the
government generally respected the right of association. The other Country
Reports, as well as other documentation on Albania that Drejaj submitted, were
generally consistent with the 2003 Report.
The 2001 Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions for Albania
(“Asylum Profile”), submitted by Drejaj, stated that most claims based on political
opinion are because of mistreatment of the applicants during the communist regime
between 1945 and 1990, and that “[w]ith 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.” The Asylum Profile
further stated that most asylum claims
5
are generally amplified by the assertion that a reconstituted
communist regime has come to power. Claims relying on this premise
are contradicted by virtually all state actions, and those who truly
were persecuted by the communists often resent the comparison. Both
major parties trace their roots to the communist regime and both
repudiate it thoroughly. . . . There is virtually no evidence that
individuals are targeted for mistreatment on political grounds.
Finally, the Asylum Profile advised that “[a]djudicators should explore all the
motivations an applicant might have for requesting asylum, including family
members already present in the United States . . . . It bears repeating the vast
majority of asylum claims involve economic, not political considerations.”
C. The Asylum Hearing
At the asylum hearing, Drejaj testified that the Albanian government began
persecuting his family in 1973, denying them basic human rights because his
cousins had fled to Yugoslavia. Drejaj had been a member of the Anti-Communist
Society of Albania since 1980, joined the DP on June 13, 2000, and was a member
of the DP and the Electoral Commission. As a member of the Electoral
Commission, his job was to prevent voting fraud.
During the October 2000 elections, approximately seven or eight policemen
came to Drejaj’s voting station, took the ballots, and beat up twelve or thirteen
individuals, including him. The police beat them because the police wanted to stay
in power. Of the twelve or thirteen individuals present, seven or eight were
members of the Electoral Commission, while the rest were observers, but the
6
police beat everybody. Drejaj stated that the commission members and observers
belonged to various parties, but that the police mostly beat up only the DP
observers.
At this point in the testimony, Drejaj’s counsel stated that she thought that
everyone had been beaten, to which Drejaj replied that, while only seven or eight
individuals were DP members, all twelve or thirteen people present were beaten.
The IJ then inquired whether it was correct that the police had beaten people from
the other parties as well as the DP. Drejaj replied, “No. They beat only the
observers of the Democratic Party. All 12 people were with the Democratic Party.
Seven or eight were part of the commission, and the others were – had only a
simpler role. They were just observers.” Then, the following exchange occurred
between the IJ and Drejaj:
IJ: Before you seemed to indicate that everybody who was
present was beaten, and now you’re stating that only
members of your party were beaten. So we’re trying to
nail down exactly who was beaten.
Drejaj: Only the members of the Democratic Party were beaten.
IJ: Didn’t you say earlier that everybody was beaten?
Drejaj: Yes, I said all, but I meant all Democratic Party,
observers and members of the commission.
IJ: Were members of the commission of other parties?
7
Drejaj: Yes, there were members of the other parties – of the
commission from the other parties, Republican Party,
Socialist Party, et cetera.
IJ: Okay. Were the members of the commission who were
not of the Democratic Party – were they beaten as well?
Drejaj: No, they were not. The main goal was to beat up all the
members of the Democratic Party.
Drejaj testified that the people who beat him up belonged to the SP. He sought
medical treatment for the bruises covering his body resulting from the police
beatings, was treated at a local hospital for four to five hours, and received an
injection, pills, and ointment for his wounds.
Drejaj further testified that he was involved in two other incidents. First,
Drejaj participated in a riot on June 24, 2001, protesting the SP stealing the
election and its use of violence against its opponents. There, the police beat him
up and threatened to kill him if he did not back down and go home. He was treated
at a local clinic for a wound to his jaw. Second, on July 5, 2001, the police came
to Drejaj’s home, arrested him and his cousin, and beat them up because the police
suspected them of planning a future demonstration. Drejaj initially testified that at
the time of the July 5, 2001, incident, he was living with his brother, mother, wife,
and children, but he then clarified that his wife was in the United States at the time.
After being arrested, Drejaj was detained for several hours in a small cell and
beaten by the police, who told him that he had to quit being a member of the DP.
8
Upon being released, he obtained treatment in the form of pain medication and
decided to leave Albania because he felt that his life was in danger.
Drejaj also testified that he was involved in riots against the Communists in
April 1991, during which he was beaten by the police and many people were killed
and seriously wounded. Drejaj’s wife and children were threatened because of his
political involvement, and his wife’s father was imprisoned for eight years. Drejaj
claimed that he had an uncle who had been imprisoned for four years for political
reasons. Drejaj stated that if forced to return to Albania, he would be killed.
On cross-examination, Drejaj acknowledged that he had not made any
arrangements to have his cousin — with whom he was arrested in July 2001, but
who was now living in New York — testify at the hearing or provide an affidavit.
Drejaj testified that on October 1, 2000 — the same day he was beaten by police at
the polling station — his wife and children boarded a flight that eventually took
them to the United States. Drejaj explained that he and his wife had planned the
trip in advance and that he wanted to travel with his family, but decided to stay
because he wanted to participate in the election. Drejaj testified that they wanted
to leave Albania because they were “unsecured”; acknowledged that at the time of
his family’s departure from Albania on October 1, 2000, he had planned to leave
Albania and rejoin his family; and stated that he wanted to leave Albania even
before October 2000 because he had been beaten and tortured. Drejaj
9
acknowledged that he had no medical records documenting the treatments he
received.
The government also asked Drejaj why he had omitted his July 2001 arrest
on his written asylum application. Drejaj replied that he had omitted it “perhaps
because it was not a major demonstration . . . .” When asked again why he had not
included this incident, given his testimony that he had been detained overnight and
beaten by the police, Drejaj replied that there was “no particular reason” he had left
it out.
Finally, the government questioned Drejaj regarding the sworn statement he
gave to the INS officer upon his arrival into the United States. Drejaj
acknowledged that he told the INS officer he was entering the country because he
feared that his family would be killed by the mafia or criminals if he did not give
them money. The government then asked Drejaj whether it was true that he did not
tell the INS officer anything about his political problems, to which he replied, “It is
true, because I simply asked for political asylum and nothing more.” The
government continued its line of questioning, asking whether it was correct that he
did not inform the INS officer about the DP or any of his problems with the police,
to which Drejaj replied, “I didn’t know I was supposed to tell everything that
happened to me when I met the Immigration Officer, and that’s why I didn’t say it
to him.”
10
D. The IJ’s Decision
In an oral decision, the IJ denied Drejaj’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal under the INA and his application for relief under the
CAT. The IJ found Drejaj not credible, focusing on three discrepancies. First,
Drejaj testified on direct examination that he was arrested along with his cousin on
July 5, 2001, but he failed to include the arrest in his written asylum application
and explained that he left out the arrest for “no particular reason.” Second, in his
initial INS interview, Drejaj stated that he was entering the United States because
he feared for his family on account of a mafia group of criminals who would kill a
person if he did not give them money. Only when the INS officer asked Drejaj if
he wanted to include anything else did he request political asylum. Moreover, in
his interview, Drejaj made no mention of his alleged political activities,
membership in the DP, or harm on account of this membership. Third, Drejaj’s
wife and children departed Albania on October 1, 2000, the same day that Drejaj
participated in local elections as a member of the Election Commission for which
he was beaten. Drejaj testified that he was planning at the time of his family’s
departure to join them eventually, revealing that Drejaj’s intent to leave Albania
arose before the incidents of October 1, 2000, and July 5, 2001.
Further, the IJ found that, even assuming that Drejaj was credible, he had
failed to meet his burden with respect to asylum because his testimony was vague,
11
general, and lacking in specific detail. Notably, the IJ pointed to Drejaj’s
testimony regarding his participation in the June 24, 2001, riot. Drejaj did not
indicate who sponsored the riot, what his role was in the riot, and what conduct he
engaged in during the riot. The IJ also pointed to the April 2, 1991, demonstration
during which “countless people” were killed or injured. Finally, the IJ noted that
Drejaj failed to provide any specifics as to why or how his wife was mistreated to
the point she had to leave Albania, or why his wife’s father had been arrested and
detained for eight years.
The IJ then focused on conditions within Albania. Citing the 2003 Country
Report, the IJ noted that: (1) Albania was a republic with a multiparty parliament
and that the October local elections were judged to be an improvement over
previous elections, with only a few isolated incidents of irregularities and violence;
(2) Albania’s constitution provided for freedom of assembly, and the government
generally respected this practice; (3) although the law required that organizers
notify the police about public gatherings, there were no reports that the police
arbitrarily refused to permit such gatherings; and (4) the constitution provided
Albanians the right to change governments peacefully, and citizens have exercised
this right through periodic elections based on universal suffrage.
In conclusion, the IJ found that even if Drejaj’s narrative was true, it did not
rise to such a level to warrant a finding of past persecution. Moreover, the IJ found
12
that Drejaj did not sustain his burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future
persecution. The IJ also denied Drejaj relief under the CAT, finding that there was
nothing in the record to indicate that he would be tortured upon his return to
Albania.3
E. Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
Drejaj appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, which adopted and affirmed the
IJ’s decision. The BIA also made additional findings. The BIA agreed with the
IJ’s enumeration of Drejaj’s discrepancies, pointing to Drejaj’s failure to detail his
political problems to the INS officer, Drejaj’s testimony regarding the October
2000 election incident, and Drejaj’s inconsistent testimony concerning the location
of his wife during his alleged arrest in July 2001.
Furthermore, the BIA found that Drejaj failed to meet his burden of proof by
failing to submit readily available corroborating evidence. Specifically, the BIA
noted that Drejaj did not have his cousin — now living in New York and with
whom he was arrested in July 2001 — testify at the hearing or provide an affidavit.
As to why he did not get an affidavit or have his cousin testify, the BIA found
3
The IJ did not expressly order Drejaj removed. “This is because [Drejaj] was referred to
the IJ for asylum only proceedings, where, according to agency regulation, the scope of the
proceeding is limited exclusively to asylum-related relief, such that the alien cannot contest
admissibility, removability, or raise claims concerning his eligibility for other forms of relief.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(c)(3)(i) (asylum-only procedures for VWP applicants).” Nreka v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 408 F.3d 1361, 1366 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005).
13
Drejaj’s explanation “that he did not think about it” to be unsatisfactory. The BIA
also noted that Drejaj’s wife did not testify or submit an affidavit, despite the fact
she was living with him in the United States.
Drejaj filed a timely petition for review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the
extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). In this case, the BIA both expressly adopted the
IJ’s decision and made additional findings. Therefore, we review both the IJ’s
decision and the BIA’s decision.
The IJ’s and BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial
evidence test, and this Court should “‘affirm the . . . decision if it is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.’” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). Therefore, a finding of fact will be reversed “only when the
record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary
conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal . . . .” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1035, 125 S. Ct. 2245
(2005). “Credibility determinations likewise are reviewed under the substantial
evidence
14
test.” D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004). “The
trier of fact must determine credibility, and this court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the IJ with respect to credibility findings.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
An alien is entitled to asylum if he can establish, with specific and credible
evidence: (1) past persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion; or (2) a “well-founded fear” that
his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion will cause future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b); Al Najjar, 257
F.3d at 1287.
“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated
incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation . . . .” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). An asylum
applicant may not show merely that he has a political opinion, but must show that
he was persecuted because of that opinion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483, 112 S. Ct. 812, 816 (1992). For a fear to be “well-founded,” “an applicant
must demonstrate that his or her fear of persecution is subjectively genuine and
objectively reasonable.” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289. To establish the necessary
causal connection, the alien must present “specific, detailed facts showing a good
reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution on account of” a
15
statutorily listed factor. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
If an alien is unable to meet the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum,
“‘he is generally precluded from qualifying for either asylum or withholding of
[removal].’” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93 (citation omitted). Similarly, the
burden on the alien seeking CAT relief is higher than the burden imposed on the
asylum seeker. Id. at 1303.
Although uncorroborated but credible testimony may be sufficient to sustain
an applicant’s burden of proving eligibility for asylum, “[t]he weaker an
applicant’s testimony, . . . the greater the need for corroborative evidence.” Yang
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005); see also 8 C.F.R.
§§ 208.13(a), 208.16(b). While “an adverse credibility determination alone may be
sufficient to support the denial of an asylum application,”
an adverse credibility determination does not alleviate the IJ’s duty to
consider other evidence produced by an asylum applicant. That is, the
IJ must still consider all evidence introduced by the applicant. If the
applicant produces no evidence other than his testimony, an adverse
credibility determination is alone sufficient to support the denial of an
asylum application. If, however, the applicant produces other
evidence of persecution, whatever form it may take, the IJ must
consider that evidence, and it is not sufficient for the IJ to rely solely
on an adverse credibility determination in those instances. Further,
the IJ must offer specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility
finding.
Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.
16
“Once an adverse credibility finding is made, the burden is on the applicant
alien to show that the IJ’s credibility decision was not supported by specific,
cogent reasons or was not based on substantial evidence.” Id. (quotation marks
and citations omitted). “A credibility determination, like any fact finding, may not
be overturned unless the record compels it.” Id. (quotation marks and citations
omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that Drejaj’s
testimony was not credible. A careful comparison between Drejaj’s testimony, his
asylum application, and his sworn statement to the INS officer reveals several
material inconsistencies, including: (1) Drejaj failed to include his July 5, 2001,
arrest in either his sworn statement or written asylum application and failed to
provide an adequate explanation for the omission, admitting on cross-examination
that he had left it out for “no particular reason”; (2) Drejaj gave inconsistent,
conflicting testimony regarding the police beatings of October 2000, first testifying
that members of other parties were beaten, only to claim later that just members of
the DP were beaten; (3) Drejaj was planning to leave Albania with his family
before the events of October 1, 2000, and July 5, 2001; and (4) Drejaj failed to
mention any acts of political persecution or his DP membership during his initial
INS interview, instead claiming that he was entering the country because he feared
for his family’s safety because of “a mafia group or criminals on the street.”
17
See Dailide v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 387 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2004)
(inconsistencies between applicant’s testimony and other record evidence supports
adverse credibility finding). These inconsistencies were cited by the IJ and the
BIA and are “specific, cogent reasons” for the adverse credibility finding and are
supported by the record. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 (quotation marks and citations
omitted).4
Also telling with regard to Drejaj’s credibility is the Asylum Profile, which
stated that claims by Albanian nationals based on political grounds are likely to be
incredible, and that such claims are usually amplified by the assertion that a
reconstituted Communist regime has come to power. This is essentially the claim
Drejaj makes in his asylum application. Indeed, the Asylum Profile cautions
adjudicators to examine closely claims such as Drejaj’s and explore other
4
Although we have not directly addressed the issue, two circuits indicate that an adverse
credibility determination based on inconsistencies must involve inconsistencies relating to the
basis of the alleged fear of persecution (i.e., “the heart of the asylum claim”) and that minor
inconsistencies about collateral matters or unimportant facts will not support an adverse
credibility finding. See Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002); Chebchoub v. INS,
257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). However, neither circuit cites any statute or regulation for
this demarcation in credibility determinations. In non-immigration cases, this circuit has not
required a witness’s inconsistent testimony to relate to the heart of the claim before the
factfinder can disbelieve that witness. See, e.g., Conroy v. Abraham Chevrolet-Tampa, Inc., 375
F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2004). However, we need not resolve this issue because Drejaj’s
inconsistencies are material and relate to the basis of his alleged fear of prosecution.
Further, the REAL ID Act of 2005, among other things, expressly permits an adverse
credibility finding based on inconsistencies “without regard to whether an inconsistency,
inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim . . . .” See Pub. L. No. 109-13,
§ 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Because Drejaj’s
asylum application was filed before May 11, 2005, the date the REAL ID Act was enacted, this
provision does not apply to his claim. Id. § 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231, 305.
18
motivations the claimant may have, including family members already present in
the United States. Drejaj’s wife and children, as well as his cousin, who was
allegedly arrested and beaten with Drejaj in Albania, reside in the United States,
but none of them testified or provided corroborating affidavits. Drejaj’s
concession that he intended to leave Albania in October 2000 with his wife and
children, but instead chose to remain and participate in the election, also
undermines his credibility and claims of persecution.
Although, as discussed above, “an adverse credibility determination does not
alleviate the IJ’s duty to consider other evidence produced by an asylum
applicant,” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287, the IJ’s decision does not reflect that he
relied solely on the adverse credibility determination. For example, the IJ
explicitly stated in his decision that the record contained the 2003 Country Report
for Albania, along with explaining that this document advised the IJ on the
political conditions in Albania at the time. The IJ also discussed the Asylum
Profile.
In addition, to the extent Drejaj submitted into evidence (1) a letter from the
PAA detailing Drejaj’s mistreatment at the hands of the Communist state security
force; and (2) a letter from the Chairman for District Kelmend, stating that Drejaj
had been targeted by the police for his political activities, the fact that this evidence
also may support a conclusion contrary to the administrative findings is not enough
19
to justify a reversal. See Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027. Thus, the IJ’s reasons for his
adverse credibility determination are supported by substantial evidence, and
nothing in the record compels us to substitute our judgment for that of the IJ
regarding credibility. See D-Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 818.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s determination
that Drejaj failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at
1287. Because Drejaj failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he likewise has
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT.
See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93, 1303.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we deny Drejaj’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
20