Filed: Oct. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-1053 Balla v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A098 277 002 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 NO
Summary: 13-1053 Balla v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A098 277 002 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 NOT..
More
13-1053
Balla v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A098 277 002
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 14th day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SHKELZEN BALLA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-1053
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
27 Director; Lynda A. Do, Attorney,
28 Office of Immigration Litigation,
29 United States Department of Justice,
30 Washington, D.C.
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 Shkelzen Balla, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks
6 review of a February 26, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming
7 the September 14, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 Alan A. Vomacka, which denied Balla’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shkelzen Balla,
11 No. A098 277 002 (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 2013), aff’g No. A098 277
12 002 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 14, 2011). 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 review the
16 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v.
17 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 The applicable standards of review are well established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 A past persecution finding creates a presumption of a
22 well-founded fear of future persecution, which the
2
1 government may rebut by demonstrating a fundamental change
2 in circumstances in the applicant’s native country. 8
3 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). In this case, the agency
4 concluded that the success of the Albanian Democratic Party
5 in multiple recent national elections undermined the
6 presumption that Balla would be persecuted in the future
7 because Albanian Socialist Party members had previously
8 persecuted him based on his support of the Democratic Party.
9 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding. See 8
10 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv); Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d
11 179, 185, 187 (2d Cir. 2006) (We “require no robotic
12 incantation by an IJ when stating for the record that, for
13 example, Albania is no longer a Communist tyranny run by a
14 psychopath.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
15 Balla argues that Albania is still a corrupt state and
16 that Albanian police sometimes operate with impunity.
17 However, generalized violence does not give rise to an
18 asylum claim, and in any event Balla fails to demonstrate
19 that he has an objectively reasonable fear of future
20 persecution on account of a protected ground, or that anyone
21 seeks to harm him specifically. See Ramsameachire v.
22 Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); Melgar de Torres
3
1 v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir. 1999). Because Balla
2 did not establish the objective likelihood of future harm
3 needed to make out an asylum claim, he is necessarily unable
4 to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim
5 for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Lecaj v.
6 Holder,
616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Mu
7 Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d
8 Cir. 2005).
9 In certain circumstances, an IJ may grant asylum to an
10 applicant who has established past persecution, but not a
11 well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
12 § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii); Wu Zheng Huang v. INS,
436 F.3d 89, 98
13 (2d Cir. 2006). This so-called “humanitarian asylum” has
14 been reserved for applicants who have suffered atrocious
15 forms of persecution or who may suffer other serious harm
16 upon their return. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii);
17 Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16, 19 (B.I.A. 1989). To
18 merit a grant of humanitarian asylum on the basis of severe
19 past persecution, an applicant must demonstrate
20 “long-lasting physical or mental effects of his
21 persecution.” Jalloh v. Gonzales,
498 F.3d 148, 151-52 (2d
22 Cir. 2007).
4
1 Balla states that he was beaten on several occasions
2 and threatened with death if he did not stop supporting the
3 Democratic Party, but he fails to discuss what lasting
4 physical or emotional impact this harm had on him. The
5 agency did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that
6 Balla failed to demonstrate that the persecution he suffered
7 was so severe as to warrant humanitarian asylum. See 8
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D); Jalloh, 498 F.3d at 151-52;
9
Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 184 (upholding the denial of
10 humanitarian asylum to a supporter of the Albanian
11 Democratic Party who had been beaten and harassed on six
12 occasions).
13
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
