Pamir Kurti v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 555 F. App'x 668 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAMIR KURTI, No. 10-71461
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-180-614
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 5, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pamir Kurti, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s order denying Kurti’s applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review the Board’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-2-
decision for substantial evidence, Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192, 1196-
97 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition.1
Petitioner credibly testified that, when he lived in Albania, he was a member
of the Democratic Party, and that he had been detained and beaten following his
participation in a political demonstration. However, substantial evidence supports
the Board’s determination that petitioner no longer has a well-founded fear of
future persecution in light of a regime change in Albania, and the continued, non-
problematic residence in Albania of most of petitioner’s seven siblings. See, e.g.,
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010); Sowe v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2008). Although one of petitioner’s brothers was
detained in 2007, petitioner did not establish that the basis for the detention was the
brother’s or the family’s political involvement.
The Board also conducted a sufficiently individualized analysis of
petitioner’s circumstances, because, among other things, the Board specifically
distinguished the role petitioner held in the Democratic Party, versus that of
petitioner’s sibling and other party members, who were severely harmed. See, e.g.,
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003).
1
Petitioner’s motion to supplement the record on review is granted.
-3-
Petitioner’s failure to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution also
defeats his claim for withholding of removal. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288.
The Board’s decision to deny CAT relief is also supported by substantial
evidence. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004) (denial of
CAT relief supported by changed country conditions).
PETITION DENIED.