Shkambi v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 09-10493 (11th Cir. October 7, 2009)
Emilian Shkambi is an Albanian who attempted to enter the U.S. through Miami on May 30, 2002. In his airport interview, he explained that he came to the U.S. to find work, and that Albanian police “make their own rules.” Shkambi was served with a notice to appear, as he did not possess any valid entry document at the time of his entry. At a credible fear interview on June 5, 2002, Shkambi reported one incident of persecution – when two police officers beat him as they broke up a Democratic Party meeting attended by Shkambi. He also reported that his uncle was twice incarcerated for being a Catholic priest.
In a March 2003 asylum application, Shkambi claimed three seperate incidents of persecution based on his political affiliation, and claimed his father and uncles also suffered. Shkambi also said that, after arriving in the U.S., his uncle told him that the police were looking for him. A medical record and country reports on Albania were submitted to support the application. Shkambi testified before an Immigration Judge at his removal hearing.
The Immigration Judge denied him asylum and withholding, finding Shkambi was not credible citing discrepancies in his claim and noting that the incidents of persecution increased with each telling. Shkambi challenged the Immigration Judge’s finding, but the Board of Immigration Appeals said that Shkambi failed to provide a plausible reason for omitting the incidents in his airport and credible fear interviews. Shkambi petitioned the Court of Appeals for review, arguing that the BIA did not provide a reasonable basis for review and that the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
The Court of Appeals found that the IJ and BIA both found specific, cogent reasons to support a meaningful appellate review and the credibility finding – namely, the recitation of incidents unmentioned in earlier interviews. The “reasoned discussion” of these omissions and inconsistencies by both the IJ and BIA allowed for meaningful review.
The court found that these specific, cogent reasons were supported by the record. Mr. Shkambi argued that his airport and credible fear interviews should not be used to discredit him. The court discussed Tang v. U.S. Atty Gen., a recent case that addressed the use of airport interviews in assessing credibility. In Tang, the 11th Circuit reversed an adverse credibility finding based solely on omissions between the airport interview and later testimony. The Court distinguished Tang’s later testimony, which elaborated on his airport interview, from Shkambi’s testimony, which they found to include entire incidents and significant facts that were not mentioned prior.




