Agalliu v. U.S. Attorney General , 441 F. App'x 726 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-15919 SEP 29, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A098-877-550
VALBONA AGALLIU,
ILIR AGALLIU,
JULIA AGALLIU,
MATTHIAS AGALLIU,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(September 29, 2011)
Before BARKETT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Valbona Agalliu, her husband, Ilir Agalliu, and their children, natives and
citizens of Albania, petition this Court to review the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals that denied Agalliu’s application for asylum and withholding
of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board
affirmed the findings of the immigration judge that Agalliu failed to prove that she
suffered past persecution or that she would be persecuted if she returned to
Albania because of a fundamental change in country conditions. We deny the
petition.
We review the decision of the Board for substantial evidence. Kazemzadeh
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 2009). Because “[o]ur
review for substantial evidence is highly deferential,” we “‘must affirm the
decision of the Board if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative
evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id. at 1351 (quoting Al Najjar v.
Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001)). Even if the record supports a
finding contrary to that reached by the Board, to reverse its decision “‘we must
find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.’” Id. (quoting
Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003)).
Agalliu challenges the finding that she was not persecuted based on her
2
political opinion, but we need not address that issue because, even if we assume
that she suffered past persecution, substantial evidence supports the finding of the
Board that there has been a fundamental change in country conditions. Agalliu
alleged that, between 2002 and 2004, she was persecuted by members of the
Socialist Party because she supported the Republican Party, but the record
establishes that the strength of the Socialist Party diminished after the national
elections in 2005. The 2006 Country Profile states that, as a result of the elections
in 2005, the “Democratic Party and its allies,” including the Republican Party,
controlled a majority of Parliament and had elected the leader of the Democratic
Party, Sali Berisha, as prime minister. Agalliu expresses fear of Socialists who
have retained their positions under the new government, but the Profile states that
“neither the Government nor the major political parties engage in policies of abuse
or coercion against their political opponents” and, “[w]hile serious political
repression existed in the past, there are no indications of systemic political
persecution in Albania at the present time.” The substantial evidence of a charge
in country conditions also means that the record does not compel a finding that
Agalliu has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution or that she is
entitled to humanitarian asylum. Because Agalliu failed to establish that she was
entitled to asylum, she also cannot satisfy the higher standards applied to
3
applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. See
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232–33 (11th Cir. 2005); Mehmeti
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196, 1201 (11th Cir. 2009).
We DENY the Agallius’ petition for review.
4