Filed: Dec. 11, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-5717-ag Volaj v. Holder BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A098 906 310 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHE
Summary: 08-5717-ag Volaj v. Holder BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A098 906 310 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER..
More
08-5717-ag
Volaj v. Holder
BIA
Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ
A098 906 310
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 11 th day of December, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 ARTA VOLAJ,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-5717-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, *
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1
2 FOR PETITIONER: Linda L. Foster, Fresh Meadows,
3 NY.
4
5 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
6 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
7 Litigation Counsel; Edward E.
8 Wiggers, Trial Attorney, Office of
9 Immigration Litigation, United
10 States Department of Justice,
11 Washington, DC.
12
13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
14 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
15 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
16 is DENIED.
17 Arta Volaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks
18 review of an October 29, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the
19 April 6, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne
20 E. Gordon-Uruakpa, which denied her application for asylum,
21 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
22 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Arta Volaj, No. A098 906 310
23 (B.I.A. Oct. 29, 2008), aff’g No. A098 906 310 (Immig. Ct.
24 N.Y. City April 6, 2006). We assume the parties’
25 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
26 of this case.
27 When, as here, the IJ’s decision rests on multiple
28 alternate grounds and the BIA adopts and affirms that
2
1 decision without expressly addressing each of the grounds,
2 we review the entire IJ decision and need not confine our
3 review to the grounds expressly addressed by the BIA. Ming
4 Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2006). We
5 review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial
6 evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
7 Corovic v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We
8 review de novo questions of law and the application of law
9 to undisputed fact. See, e.g., Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331
10 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003).
11 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that,
12 because of changed country conditions in Albania, Volaj’s
13 fear of future persecution is not well-founded. See
14 Hoxhallari v. Gonzales,
468 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006).
15 Even if an applicant establishes that she endured past
16 persecution, the presumption of a well-founded fear that
17 arises upon such a showing may be rebutted if the IJ finds
18 that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances
19 such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of
20 persecution in her country of nationality on account of one
21 of the five statutory grounds. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1).
22 Here, the IJ reasonably found, based on Volaj’s
3
1 testimony, that even if Volaj suffered past persecution, her
2 fear of future persecution was not well-founded. Volaj’s
3 asylum claim was based on persecution she and other members
4 of the Democratic Party suffered at the hands of the
5 Socialist commune leader in their area. Yet, as the IJ
6 found, because that commune leader no longer held a position
7 of power, and the position was filled by a member of the
8 Democratic Party, Volaj’s fear of persecution was not
9 objectively reasonable. The IJ reasonably found that
10 because the police in her area work for the commune leader,
11 Volaj would have redress were police to mistreat her. Under
12 these circumstances, the IJ did not err in denying Volaj’s
13 asylum application. See Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 187; Jian
14 Xing Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
15 Although Volaj argues that more recent elections in
16 Albania have returned control of many local governments to
17 the Socialist Party, “there is no doubt that there has been
18 a fundamental change in the political structure and
19 government of Albania,” notwithstanding that “Democrats have
20 not been continuously in power,” and thus the IJ’s finding
21 of changed country conditions in Albania is adequate.
22
Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 188.
23 Because the issue of changed country conditions is
4
1 dispositive of Volaj’s asylum claim, we do not address
2 whether the persecution she allegedly suffered had a
3 sufficient nexus to a protected ground.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the
6 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.
7
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11
12 By:___________________________
5
