Anila Isufi v. Us Attorney General , 447 F. App'x 127 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 22, 2011
No. 11-11886
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A096-268-031
ANILA ISUFI,
STIVI ISUFI,
JUGERT ISUFI,
JETMIR ISUFI,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(November 22, 2011)
Before HULL, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anila Isufi and her family, natives and citizens of Albania, petition for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied Isufi’s
motion to reconsider. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.
We lack jurisdiction to consider two of Isufi’s arguments. First, Isufi
challenges the denial of asylum and withholding of removal, but Isufi waited more
than 30 days to petition for review of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1), (b)(1). The “finality [of the order] [was] not affected by the
subsequent filing of [Isufi’s] motion to reconsider.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,
405, 115 S. Ct. 1537, 1549 (1995). Second, Isufi argues that she was denied a fair
hearing because of “administrative errors and due process violations,” but Isufi
never presented this argument to the Board. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part Isufi’s petition
about these arguments.
The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Isufi’s motion for
reconsideration. Isufi argues that the Department submitted an article from
Wikipedia that was unreliable, but the Board relied on information about changed
country conditions in the Country Reports and 2006 Profile of Asylum Claims to
find that Isufi lacked an objectively reasonable fear that she would be persecuted
on removal to Albania. See Imelda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 611 F.3d 724, 728 (11th
2
Cir. 2010). The Board found that Isufi had been persecuted by the Socialist Party,
but that the Country Reports and Profile established that the Democratic Party, of
which Isufi was a member, had assumed control of the Albanian government in
2005 and had worked to eliminate political oppression and police abuse. Although
Isufi argues that “the burden of proof [had been] improperly placed on [her]” to
prove that her fear of future persecution was well founded, the Board stated that it
had “simply observed that there was not evidence of any . . . threats” that would
suggest that the Socialist Party remained interested in Isufi. Isufi argues that the
Board failed to “address[] the question of humanitarian asylum,” but Isufi “without
excuse or exception” failed to request that form of relief in her motion. See
Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1250. Isufi also argues that the Board should
have reopened her proceedings, but her argument “is so conclusory that [it is]
deemed abandoned.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 632 F.3d
1195, 1201 n.7 (11th Cir. 2011). We deny that part of Isufi’s petition that
challenged the denial of her motion for reconsideration.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3