Agani v. Sessions ( 2018 )

14-2373
Agani v. Sessions
BIA
Morace, IJ
A094 004 723/692
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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
6th day of February, two thousand eighteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
REENA RAGGI,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SAUDIN AGANI, AKA SAUDIN LALICIC,
AKA SAUD LALICIC, AKA SAUD AGANI,
DANIJELA AGANI, AKA DANIYELA AGANI,
Petitioners,
v. 14-2373
NAC
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Lauren Anselowitz, Harlan York &
Associates, Newark, NJ.
FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General; Andrew
N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation
Counsel; Matt A. Crapo, Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation,
United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
DENIED.
Petitioners Saudin and Danijela Agani, natives of Germany
and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, seek review of a May
30, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming an August 9, 2012,
decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Saudin
Agani, Danijela Agani, Nos. A094 004 723/692 (B.I.A. May 30,
2014), aff’g No. A094 004 723/692 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug.
9, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the
sake of completeness.” Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the
agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, reversing
only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We
review de novo questions of law, including the application of
law to undisputed facts. Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217,
2
220 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the agency reasonably concluded that
the Aganis did not establish a likelihood of persecution or
torture in either Bosnia and Herzegovina or Germany.
Persecution includes “non-life threatening violence and
physical abuse, or non-physical forms of harm such as the
deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage,”
but “does not encompass mere harassment.” Ivanishvili v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted). In the
case of non-governmental persecution, the applicant must also
demonstrate that the government is “unwilling or unable to
control” the private actors. Ruqiang Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d
294, 298 (2d Cir. 2012).
The agency properly declined to consider Saudin Agani’s
mistreatment as a child in Kosovo because Kosovo is not a country
of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). The agency also
reasonably concluded that the Aganis did not establish that they
would be singled out for persecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of mixed
ethnicity families in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 8 C.F.R. §
1208.16(b)(2); see Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.
2009).
The Aganis also argue that their past treatment in Germany,
considered cumulatively, amounted to persecution. See
3
Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (past
incidents of harm should be considered cumulatively). While
this treatment may amount to unlawful harassment, the agency
reasonably concluded that it did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Ivanishvili, 433 F.3d at 341-42 (describing
the difference between harassment and persecution).
Further, the record does not compel a conclusion that the
Aganis will likely face persecution in Germany. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
For the same reasons discussed above, the BIA reasonably
found that the Aganis cannot show a likelihood of torture. Cf.
Lecaj, 616 F.3d at 119-20.
We have considered the Aganis’ remaining arguments and
found them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the
petition for review is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4