Gjini v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60883 Document: 00515839638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 28, 2021
No. 19-60883
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Besmir Gjini,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A212 904 526
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Besmir Gjini, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions us to review the
Board of Immigration Appeal’s approval of his order of removal. He argues
that he has proven the elements of his asylum and withholding of removal
claims on the basis of past persecution and fear of future persecution. The
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60883 Document: 00515839638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2021
No. 19-60883
Board rejected Gjini’s appeal of his past persecution claim on the grounds of
the harm he described not being extreme enough. The Board also rejected
Gjini’s fear of future persecution claim because Gjini did not prove relocation
within his home country would be unreasonable. We review decisions of the
Board with deference and only overturn their conclusions when the evidence
compels us. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007)
Persecution for the purposes of a past persecution asylum claim must
be extreme conduct. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006).
Our precedent holds that harm analogous to what Gjini described
experiencing is not statutory persecution. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d
579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 (5th Cir.
2004). Gjini asserts that he has experienced more harm than the aliens in
these cases, but we are not compelled to agree. See Singh v. Barr, 818 F.
App’x. 331, 334 (5th Cir. 2020). 1
Gjini also presents us with argument concerning the other elements of
a past persecution claim. We have no grounds to review these arguments
because this claim cannot succeed without first proving persecution. See
Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 340 (Att’y Gen. 2018)
Asylum can also be based on a reasonable fear of future persecution.
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2001). This fear is
not reasonable when relocation is possible. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Reviewing the evidence does not compel us to find that relocation is
unreasonable in this case. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 194.
1
Unpublished opinions may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v.
Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).
2
Case: 19-60883 Document: 00515839638 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2021
No. 19-60883
As Gjini cannot fulfill the elements of his asylum claim he necessarily
fails to fulfill the higher standard required for withholding of removal. See
Majd, 446 F.3d at 595.
DENIED.
3