Filed: Jan. 12, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-6118-ag Bajraktari v. Holder BIA Videla, IJ A099 610 056 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: 08-6118-ag Bajraktari v. Holder BIA Videla, IJ A099 610 056 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
08-6118-ag
Bajraktari v. Holder
BIA
Videla, IJ
A099 610 056
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 12 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 WILFRED FEINBERG,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 EDMOND BAJRAKTARI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-6118-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR.,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, *
20 Respondent.
21
22 _________________________________________
*
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 FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, New
2 York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Acting Assistant Attorney
5 General; Ernesto H. Molina Jr.,
6 Assistant Director; Jeffery R.
7 Leist, Trial Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, Civil
9 Division, U.S. Department of
10 Justice, Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
14 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
15 review is DENIED.
16 Edmond Bajraktari, a native and citizen of Albania,
17 seeks review of a November 18, 2008 order of the BIA
18 affirming the October 25, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge
19 (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Videla, denying his application for
20 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
21 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Edmond
22 Bajraktari, No. A099 610 056 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2008), aff’g
23 No. A099 610 056 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 25, 2006). We
24 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
25 and procedural history of this case.
26 When the BIA issues an opinion that fully adopts the
27 IJ’s decision, this Court reviews the IJ’s decision. See,
28 e.g., Chun Gao v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir.
2
1 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings under the
2 substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
3 see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d
4 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
5 Bajraktari has waived any challenge to the agency’s
6 finding that country conditions have changed in Albania,
7 such that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of
8 future persecution. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d
9 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Because this unchallenged
10 finding is dispositive of Bajraktari’s asylum and
11 withholding of removal claims, see Hoxhallari v. Gonzales,
12
468 F.3d 179, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2007), we decline to review
13 the agency’s adverse credibility and alternative burden of
14 proof findings.
15 Finally, because Bajraktari fails to indicate anything
16 in the record that would compel a reasonable fact finder to
17 conclude that he would more likely than not suffer torture
18 if returned to Albania, the agency’s denial of CAT relief
19 was proper. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur,
20 494 F.3d at 289.
21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3
1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
6 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
11 By:___________________________
4
