Shehu v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 15, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60228
Summary Calendar
MIGEN SHEHU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 218 663
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Migen Shehu petitions for review of the order issued by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to
reopen. Shehu moved to reopen the removal proceedings on his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Shehu contends that the BIA’s decision denying his motion to
reopen is irrational and contrary to law. He asserts that the
BIA did not consider the evidence that he submitted with the
motion to reopen. Shehu argues that the evidence he submitted is
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-60228
-2-
the same evidence that his cousin used to obtain withholding of
removal. Shehu asserts that he could not have presented the
evidence at his original hearing. He insists that he will face
persecution if he is returned to Albania and that he will be
persecuted on account of his membership in his family.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion. Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 600 (5th Cir.
1993). The BIA may deny a motion to reopen “if the movant fails
to establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive
relief sought.” Id.To establish eligibility for asylum, Shehu had to
demonstrate a “well-founded fear of persecution in his country of
nationality . . . on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 1992). Persecution
is the “infliction of suffering or harm, under government
sanction.” Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583 (5th Cir.
1996).
As the BIA determined, Shehu’s new evidence concerned events
personal to his cousin; the new evidence did not establish a
well-founded fear that Shehu would be persecuted. See Adebisi,
952 F.2d at 912. Further, Shehu’s fear of persecution arises out
of a personal dispute; Shehu did not establish that the alleged
persecution he fears will be perpetrated under government
sanction. See Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 583. Shehu did not
No. 04-60228
-3-
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of any of
the five statutory grounds. See Adebisi, 952 F.2d at 912-13.
Because Shehu did not make the showing required to establish
eligibility for asylum, he has not met the more stringent
standard necessary to establish eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Shehu abandoned any review of the denial of relief under the CAT.
See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, Shehu’s petition for review is DENIED.