BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ submissions to this Court, we cannot say that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to disagree with the BIA’s conclusions that petitioner’s well-founded fear of persecution was rebutted by fundamental changes in Albania, that petitioner lacks compelling reasons to remain in the United States regardless, and that petitioner is not subject to a reasonable possibility of suffering other serious harm in Albania. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Petitioner’s claim that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding is without merit. See Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 619, 624 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Finally, petitioner provides no rationale for
holding that 8 cfr 10031d3iv merely prohibits the bia from taking new evidence into the record holding that the court will not remand if i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding that any inherent power to remand to the bia for the consideration of additional evidence should not be exercised where i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence