Ujka v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-11239 APR 20, 2011
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
Agency No. A79-498-591
FRANCESK UJKA,
ELIDA UJKA,
DAJANA UJKA,
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(April 20, 2011)
Before MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Francesk Ujka, Elida Ujka, and Dajana Ujka (collectively, “the Ujkas”)
petition for review of the denial of their asylum applications.1 The Ujkas argue
that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) conclusion that the government
showed changed country conditions is not supported by substantial evidence
because the BIA improperly relied on State Department country reports. The
Ujkas also argue that they are entitled to humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and
with the benefit of oral argument, we deny the Ujkas’ petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports both the BIA’s determination that the
government showed changed country conditions and its conclusion that the Ujkas
are not entitled to humanitarian asylum. First, the BIA’s reliance on State
Department country reports was proper in this case because the BIA pointed to
portions of those reports showing that local police—the source of the Ujkas’ past
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting
by designation.
1
The Ujkas were also denied withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Ujkas have abandoned these issues by not
raising them in their brief to this Court. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228
n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
political persecution—were now under the control of the political party to which
the Ujkas belong. As such, the BIA performed an “individualized analysis that
focuse[d] on the specific harm suffered and the relationship to it of the particular
information contained in the relevant country reports.” Imelda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
611 F.3d 724, 729 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Second, while we
recognize that the Ujkas’ experience in Albania was horrific, humanitarian asylum
“is reserved for the most extraordinary cases,” and we cannot say that the record
before us compels the conclusion that the past persecution here rises to such a
level that asylum must be granted even without a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196, 1200–01 (11th Cir.
2009). For these reasons, we deny the Ujkas’ petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
3