Filed: Apr. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-607-ag Klobucista v. Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A093 412 661 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH
Summary: 10-607-ag Klobucista v. Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A093 412 661 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH ..
More
10-607-ag
Klobucista v. Holder
BIA
Elstein, IJ
A093 412 661
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 4 th day of April, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
DRITAN KLOBUCISTA,
Petitioner,
v. 10-607-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Fatos Koleci, Law Office of Fatos
Koleci, LLC, Milford, CT.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Ann M.
Welhaf, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Dritan Klobucista, a native and citizen of
Macedonia, seeks review of a January 22, 2010, decision of
the BIA affirming the March 31, 2008, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dritan
Klobucista, No. A093 412 661 (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2010), aff’g
No. A093 412 661 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 31, 2008). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Where, as here, the BIA affirms only part of the IJ’s
decision, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the
BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d
520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii);
Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
As this Court has noted, “the REAL ID Act emphasizes the
importance of corroborating evidence” in determining whether
2
an applicant has met his burden of proof, and an IJ may
properly deny an applicant’s claim for failure to provide
corroborating evidence. Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193,
197 (2d Cir. 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii),
1252(b)(4).
In finding that Klobucista failed to meet his burden of
proof, the IJ: (1) found that the country conditions
evidence Klobucista provided did not establish that
Macedonian officials persecute ethnic Albanians or members
of the Party for Democratic Prosperity; (2) afforded
diminished weight to the letters Klobucista submitted from
friends and family because they were unsworn and
unauthenticated and contained no specific details regarding
the incidents of harm he allegedly endured; and (3) noted
that Klobucista did not provide any testimony or statement
from his brother, an asylee living in New York, who had
personal knowledge of both his membership in the Party for
Democratic Prosperity and at least one of the incidents of
harm Klobucista allegedly endured.
Klobucista argues that the IJ afforded insufficient
weight to the letters he submitted from family members, his
employer, and the Party for Democratic Prosperity. However,
3
as the IJ noted, these letters were unsworn and
unauthenticated and, to the extent they referred to the
incidents of harm that Klobucista allegedly endured, were
unsupported by any objective evidence in the record. Thus,
the IJ’s decision to afford them diminished weight was
reasonable. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434
F.3d 144, 164 (2d Cir. 2006)(weight accorded to evidence is
within the IJ’s discretion).
Contrary to Klobucista’s argument that the IJ
unreasonably required him to provide medical records, the IJ
did not rely on the lack of such evidence in concluding that
Klobucista failed to meet his burden of proof. We likewise
reject as speculative Klobucista’s assertion that the IJ
erroneously required an affidavit or testimony from his
brother because such affidavits are “regularly disregarded”
in immigration proceedings and that, even assuming he had
provided such an affidavit, the IJ necessarily “would have
given it little or no weight.” Br. of Pet’r 26.
Finally, although Klobucista asserts that the IJ failed
to consider the cumulative impact of the incidents he
described, because the IJ reasonably found that Klobucista
submitted insufficient evidence to establish that these
4
incidents took place, she was under no obligation to
consider them collectively. Cf. Manzur v. U.S. Dept’t of
Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 287, 290 (2d Cir. 2007)(where
the IJ did not question the credibility of testimony and
evidence with respect to alleged incidents, the IJ was
obligated to consider the incidents in the aggregate).
Because Klobucista was unable to meet his burden for
asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher burden
required for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 155 (2d Cir. 2006). To the extent that
Klobucista argues that there exists in Macedonia a pattern
or practice of persecution against ethnic Albanians, because
he failed to raise this issue before the BIA, the Court need
not address this unexhausted argument. See Lin Zhong v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
