Selman-Ahmeti v. Holder

09-2886-ag
Selman-Ahmeti v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A094 798 567
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 A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 1 st day of June, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MUHAMET SELMAN-AHMETI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2886-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Saul C. Brown, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Civil Division; Shelley R.
27 Goad, Assistant Director; Russel
28 J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation
29 Counsel, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Muhamet Selman-Ahmeti, a native and citizen of Serbia,
6 seeks review of a June 10, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming
7 the September 19, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 Robert D. Weisel, which denied his application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Muhamet Selman-Ahmeti, No.
11 A094 798 567 (B.I.A. June 10, 2009), aff’g No. A094 798 567
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 19, 2007). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d
17 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review
18 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see
19 also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 The agency reasonably concluded that Selman-Ahmeti
21 failed to demonstrate that he had suffered past persecution
22 or that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Serbia
23 on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C.
2
1 § 1101(a)(42); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). The agency’s
2 finding regarding past persecution was reasonably based on
3 the fact that Selman-Ahmeti himself was never physically
4 harmed. Tao Jiang v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir.
5 2007)(“[A]n asylum applicant cannot claim past persecution
6 based solely on harm that was inflicted on a family member
7 on account of that family member’s political opinion or
8 other protected characteristic.”)(citing Melgar de Torres v.
9 Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 n.2 (2d Cir. 1999)). To the extent
10 he argues that his family was beaten and his home vandalized
11 on account of his imputed political opinion, at the time of
12 the incident, he was not living with the family and was able
13 to remain in the country unharmed for four months
14 thereafter. See id. at 141-42 (“[H]arm suffered by family
15 members in combination with other factors . . . would
16 presumably only be [persecution] where . . . the applicant
17 not only shares (or is perceived to share) the
18 characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family
19 member, but was also within the zone of risk when the family
20 member was harmed, and suffered some continuing hardship
21 after the incident.”). Thus, substantial evidence supports
22 the agency’s conclusion that Selman-Ahmeti failed to
3
1 establish that he suffered past persecution. See Jorge-Tzoc
2 v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Tao
3 Jiang, 500 F.3d at 141-42.
4 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
5 eligibility for asylum by showing that he subjectively fears
6 persecution on account of an enumerated ground and that his
7 fear is objectively reasonable. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
8 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). In this case, the agency
9 reasonably found that Selman-Ahmeti’s claim of a well-
10 founded fear of persecution was undercut by the fact that he
11 was able to remain in the country without experiencing harm
12 for four months following the attack on his family. See
13 Melgar de Torres, 191 F.3d at 313. That Selman-Ahmeti was
14 able to relocate his family to another village where they
15 have been living without incident since 2006 further
16 undermined his claim. See id.; see also Lie v. Ashcroft,
17 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005).
18 Ultimately, the agency did not err in finding that
19 Selman-Ahmeti failed to establish past persecution or a
20 well-founded fear of persecution, and thus, reasonably
21 denied his application for asylum. Because Selman-Ahmeti
22 failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of withholding of
4
1 removal and CAT relief on appeal to the BIA, as a statutory
2 matter, we are without jurisdiction to consider any
3 challenge to the denial of that relief.
4 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
5