Florin Haxhari v. Atty Gen USA ( 2012 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-1973
_____________
FLORIN HAXHARI, a/k/a Daniele Hessi;
LUCE HAXHARI, a/k/a Elena Inzachi,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
_____________
On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A098-586-577)
Submitted January 24, 2012
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: January 27, 2012)
____________
OPINION
____________
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
Florin Haxhari and his wife, Luce Haxhari, petition for review of the decision
entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), vacating the Immigration Judge‟s
grant of Haxhari‟s application for asylum. For the reasons set forth the below, we will
deny the petition.
I.
We write for the parties‟ benefit and recite only the facts essential to our
disposition. Florin Haxhari (“Haxhari”) was born in Juban-Shkoder, Albania in 1980.
Appendix (“App.”) 513.1 He married Luce Haxhari on September 5, 2003 in Albania.
App. 514. Haxhari joined the Democratic Party in July 1998. App. 146. In September
1998, Haxhari was arrested by the police when he returned from the funeral of a
Democratic Party leader. App. 144-45. He was held for five or six hours, interrogated,
punched, had his hair pulled, and was called a “dunce of the Democratic Party.” App.
145-46. In December 1999, after participating in a protest in Gurizi, Haxhari was
arrested, held overnight and beaten. App. 147-48. In October 2000, Haxhari was
assaulted by unknown individuals for ten minutes and was told “you better withdraw
your efforts from the Democratic Party or you will end up dead.” App. 149. Haxhari did
not seek medical treatment after the beating. App. 149-50. He also did not report the
incident to the police, because he felt he could not seek their protection after they arrested
him only a year before. App. 150. On June 17, 2003, Haxhari was arrested because he
was involved in a debate with members of the Socialist Party the previous day. App.
152. He was detained for three hours and questioned about his political beliefs. App.
153.
1
The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, contained provisions
regarding credibility determinations. However, because Haxhari filed his asylum
application before May 11, 2005, those provisions do not apply in this case. Lin v.
Gonzales, 503 F.3d 4, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). The BIA noted that the Immigration Judge did
not make explicit credibility findings, but the BIA also noted that Haxhari‟s credibility
was not in dispute. App. 2.
2
On October 12, 2003, while serving as an election monitor, Haxhari pointed out
violations by a member of the local election committee who was a member of the
Socialist Party. App. 155. On his way home that day, he was beaten by masked men
who threatened his life. App. 158. He reported the incident to the police, but they were
unable to pursue a case because Haxhari could not identify the masked perpetrators.
App. 158. In April 2004, two masked men entered Haxhari‟s shop, beat him for 20 to 30
minutes, until they “almost left me dead on the floor” and warned him that there would
be “no more warnings for you. This is it, and you will die. You will die soon.” App.
159-60. Haxhari did seek medical attention after this incident and received penicillin and
valium to treat his wounds and infection. App. 160. Haxhari left the clinic against
medical advice to stay for observation because he feared for his life. App. 161. He left
Albania on May 21, 2004. App. 161. Haxhari and his wife entered the United States on
May 26, 2004 using fraudulent passports. App. 501, 621, 644. The Democratic Party
returned to power through a coalition in Albania in 2005 but Haxhari testified that he
believed that “the mafia group and the secret service police, and the secrets [sic] service,
the informative state services continue to actively work for the Socialist Party.” App.
162.
Haxhari also proffered expert testimony by Dr. Bernd J. Fischer. Fischer testified
that people in Albania rarely go to the police because of distrust and fear. App. 217. He
testified that he was unsure whether the “Democratic Party has the ability to protect
people at the lower levels.” App. 216. Fischer testified that “police at the lower levels
are still dominated by people who were appointed during the Socialist period.” App. 214.
3
Fischer testified that a member of the Democratic Party who was assaulted by a member
of the Socialist Party could pursue criminal action but he stated, “I‟m not certain they
would get very far, again, because of the fact that the judiciary as well as the police are
highly politicized and highly corrupt.” App. 216. Fischer admitted he did not have any
specific information about the Shkoder police department, App. 233, and that he had
previously stated that “[c]ard carrying members of the Democratic Party are not at risk of
ill treatment.” App. 218.
On August 18, 2008, the Immigration Judge granted asylum to Haxhari and
derivatively to his wife. App. 101-02. The Immigration Judge declined to analyze
Haxhari‟s application for withholding of removal.2 App. 101. The Immigration Judge
also declined to make a specific finding on whether Haxhari had established past
persecution, App. 88, which would have given rise to a rebuttable presumption of a well-
founded fear of future persecution. Toure v. Att‟y Gen., 443 F.3d 310, 316 (3d Cir.
2006). The Immigration Judge relied on Haxhari and Fischer‟s testimony as well as the
State Department Country Reports on Human Rights in Albania to conclude that
Haxhari‟s fear of persecution by the police because of his membership in the Democratic
Party was reasonable and well-founded. App. 99-100.
2
Haxhari set forth the standard for granting withholding of removal in his brief, but
presents no argument in support of the claim. Haxhari Br. 7. Thus, he has waived the
claim on appeal. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 532 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005). Further,
because “the threshold for asylum is lower than for protection under the withholding of
removal . . . provisions,” Yu v. Att‟y Gen., 513 F.3d 346, 349 (3d Cir. 2008), and because
we reject Haxhari‟s asylum claim, we necessarily would reject his claim for withholding
of removal, were it not waived.
4
The BIA held the facts as found by the Immigration Judge did not rise to the level
of persecution. App. 3. The Board vacated the Immigration Judge‟s grant of asylum,
finding that Haxhari‟s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable and
therefore he had not established eligibility for asylum. App. 3.
II.
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA‟s final removal orders. 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1); Huang v. Att‟y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010). “The BIA‟s ruling
on an asylum petition is „conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of
discretion.‟” Huang, 620 F.3d at 379 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)). “We review
the facts upon which the BIA‟s decision rests to ensure that they are supported by
substantial evidence from the record considered as a whole, Espinosa-Cortez v. Att‟y
Gen., 607 F.3d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 2010), and we will reverse based on a factual error only
if any reasonable fact-finder would be „compelled to conclude otherwise.‟” Id. (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). This Court has held that both “„persecution,‟ and „well-
founded fear of persecution‟ are . . . findings of fact that we review under the deferential
substantial evidence standard articulated in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992).”
Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483 (3d Cir. 2001).
III.
To establish eligibility for asylum, Haxhari must prove that he is a refugee. “A
refugee is „any person who is outside any country of such person‟s nationality . . . and
who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or
herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
5
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.‟” Toure, 443 F.3d at 316 (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)(A)). “An asylum applicant must demonstrate either past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution.” Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 613 (3d Cir.
2005). Persecution includes “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic
restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Fatin v. I.N.S., 12
F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA‟s conclusion that Haxhari has failed to
show past persecution. The brief detentions Haxhari testified to do not rise to the level of
past persecution. This Court has held that “isolated incidents that do not result in serious
injury do not rise to the level of persecution.” Voci, 409 F.3d at 614-15 (finding
persecution where petitioner alleged “multiple beatings, seven of which he characterized
as severe, and at least one of which resulted in a broken knee and an extended hospital
stay” as well as threats and intimidation of himself and his family); see also Jarbough v.
Att‟y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2007) (finding no persecution when petitioner
alleged two police detentions, the first lasting four hours and including punches and
threats of use of wires and electrical cables, and the second lasting two days where
officers “cursed, threatened, kicked, shoved, and pushed him” but after which petitioner
did not seek medical attention). Further, the BIA correctly found that Haxhari failed to
prove the Albanian government was unwilling or unable to control the private citizens
who mistreated him. Wong v. Att‟y Gen., 539 F.3d 225, 233 (3d Cir. 2008).
6
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA‟s conclusion that Haxhari failed to
prove fear of future persecution. To establish a well-founded fear of persecution,
Haxhari must show an “individualized risk of persecution or that there is a „pattern or
practice‟ of persecution” of similarly situated individuals. Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530,
537 (3d Cir. 2005). The Democratic Party came to power in Albania after Haxhari left
and the BIA found that the State Department Country Reports do not mention the type of
mistreatment Haxhari experienced. In light of the changes in country conditions, the BIA
correctly found the testimony of Haxhari‟s expert insufficient to establish an objective
basis for a well-founded fear of persecution because Haxhari failed to demonstrate that he
would be targeted individually or that there is a pattern or practice of targeting
Democratic Party members. See Ambartsoumian v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir.
2004) (holding reliance on State Department Reports is “justifiable” as “substantial
evidence” in immigration decisions); see also Cuko v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 32, 40 (1st Cir.
2008) (relying on State Department Country Reports to find that Albanian Democratic
Party member did not prove a well-founded fear of future persecution).
Finally, Haxhari contends that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding.
However, whether the facts as found by the Immigration Judge rise to the level of past
persecution and the reasonableness of Haxhari‟s fear of future persecution are mixed
questions of law and fact that the BIA properly reviewed de novo. See Huang, 620 F.3d
at 384-85.3
3
Haxhari also contends that he should be granted asylum for humanitarian reasons and
that he faces future persecution because he did not appear for his military service.
7
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
Because he did not raise these claims in his administrative proceedings, they are
unexhausted and we need not address them. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
8