Filed: Apr. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 11-2785-ag Sulollari v. Holder BIA Sichel, IJ A095 370 353 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: 11-2785-ag Sulollari v. Holder BIA Sichel, IJ A095 370 353 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 T..
More
11-2785-ag
Sulollari v. Holder
BIA
Sichel, IJ
A095 370 353
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.
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 5 th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
10 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 RENATO SULOLLARI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-2785-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Carl H. McIntyre; Assistant
29 Director, Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States Department
32 of Justice, Washington D.C.
33
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Renato Sulollari, a native and citizen of
6 Albania, seeks review of a June 16, 2011, decision of the
7 BIA affirming the May 18, 2009, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Helen Sichel, denying his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Renato Sulollari,
11 No. A095 370 353 (B.I.A. June 16, 2011), aff’g No. A095 370
12 353 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Yang v. U.S.
17 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
19 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Weng v. U.S. Dep’t of
20 Justice,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because the BIA
21 declined to address the IJ’s credibility determination and
22 found that even assuming Sulollari’s credibility, the
2
1 government had demonstrated a fundamental change in country
2 conditions, we address only the agency’s dispositive future
3 persecution finding. See Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111,
4 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (assuming credibility when the BIA does
5 not affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility determination); see
6 also
Yang, 426 F.3d at 522. We conclude that the agency
7 reasonably found that Sulollari failed to demonstrate that
8 he would suffer any harm if returned to Albania. See
9 Hoxhallari v. Gonzales,
468 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 The government may rebut a finding of past persecution,
11 and the resulting presumption of a well-founded fear of
12 future persecution, by showing a fundamental change in
13 conditions in the country where the petitioner suffered past
14 persecution such that the applicant’s fear of persecution is
15 no longer well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); Niang
16 v. Mukasey,
511 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir. 2007). Sulollari’s
17 application is based on his membership in the Democratic
18 Party (“DP”) and his fear of harm at the hands of members of
19 the Socialist Party (“SP”), who were in control of the local
20 and national government of Albania when Sulollari applied
21 for asylum in 2002. Given the fundamental change in
22 Albania–namely the DP’s 2005 takeover of the
3
1 government–Sulollari had the burden to establish that he has
2 a well-founded fear of harm at the hands of the government,
3 now controlled by the DP. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see
4 also Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 187-88 (concluding that alien’s
5 fear of future persecution based on his affiliation with the
6 DP was not well-founded in light of the “fundamental change
7 in the political structure and government of Albania”).
8 Sulollari argues that he fears harm if returned to Albania
9 due to local police corruption and his previous DP
10 activities, but he has not identified any evidence that the
11 local police force is SP-aligned or that DP activists have
12 been persecuted by the local police. See 8 C.F.R.
13 § 1208.13(b)(1). Moreover, Sulollari failed to demonstrate
14 that he could not relocate to a DP-controlled area; the
15 agency reasonably found DP-led government controls the
16 security apparatus throughout Albania. See 8 C.F.R.
17 § 1208.13(b)(3)(F).
18 Because the agency reasonably found that there had been
19 a fundamental change in Albania and that Sulollari had not
20 otherwise shown a well-founded fear of harm, the agency did
21 not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
22 relief because all three claims were based on the same
23 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156
24 (2d Cir. 2006).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13
5
