Ilmi Isufi v. U.S. Attorney General , 619 F. App'x 808 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-15753 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15753
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A206-651-322
ILMI ISUFI,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 14, 2015)
Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ilmi Isufi (“Isufi”) petitions this court to vacate and remand a final order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying Isufi’s applications for
Case: 14-15753 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 2 of 6
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.
I. Course of Proceedings Below
Isufi is an Albanian citizen who resettled in Greece in 1991. He moved his
family there for economic reasons. His wife and two daughters still live in Greece.
During his years in Greece, he has returned to Albania for a brief stay once every
eighteen months to two years.
Isufi arrived in the United States with a fake passport in early April 2014.
He was referred immediately to an Immigration Judge for “Asylum Only”
proceedings. Isufi sought asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He also sought CAT protection.
Despite inconsistent testimony and documents, the Immigration Judge
found that Isufi testified “consistently and credibly.” (AR 69-70). The
Immigration Judge concluded that Isufi had proven only that he was the victim of a
family dispute. (Id. 70). The Immigration Judge also concluded that Isufi had
resettled in Greece over twenty years earlier, or that, at least, he had a safe haven
there. (Id. 71). And, despite Isufi’s testimony that ethnic Albanians suffered
prejudice in Greece, the Immigration Judge concluded that Isufi was not seeking
asylum from Greece. The Immigration Judge further found that Isufi could
relocate within Albania and avoid the actual or feared harm upon which he based
2
Case: 14-15753 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 3 of 6
his refugee status. (Id. 72). As to the application for CAT protection, the
Immigration Judge reasoned that no evidence supported Isufi’s claim. (Id.).
The Immigration Judge denied Isufi’s petition. Isufi appealed to the Board,
which reviews an Immigration Judge’s findings of fact for clear error, but reviews
all other matters de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i–ii). The Board, without
expressly adopting the Immigration Judge’s opinion, agreed with it in all respects
and dismissed Isufi’s appeal. (AR 4-6). In particular, and citing Mazariegos v.
United States Attorney General, 241 F.3d 1320, 1327 (11th Cir. 2001), the Board
agreed that Isufi could avoid future harm by relocating within Albania, which
negated any need for asylum. (AR 5).
II. Standard of Review
Where, as here, the Board relied upon the Immigration Judge’s decision and
reasoning without expressly adopting it, we review the Immigration Judge’s
opinion and any portion of the Board’s opinion on matters that the Immigration
Judge did not cover. Seck v. United States Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1364 (11th
Cir. 2011). We will not disturb the agency’s decision “if it is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole,” and we will reverse the agency “only when the record compels a reversal;
the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to
3
Case: 14-15753 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 4 of 6
justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Tan v. United States Att’y Gen.,
446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
III. Discussion
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant
asylum to an alien satisfying the definition of “refugee” under 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)(A). For our purposes, the determinative factor as to whether Isufi is a
refugee as to whom asylum and withholding of removal may be granted is whether
he will suffer political persecution if he is returned to Albania. Id.; 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B). But, the Attorney General is prohibited from granting asylum to an
alien who “was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United
States.” Id., § 1158(b)(2)(vi).
On this appeal, Isufi presents three basic contentions. First, he contends that
the Board failed to address evidence demonstrating that Isufi and his family were
targeted due to his political opinions. But, Isufi has not directed our attention to
evidence that compels reversal. Isufi admitted that, for economic reasons, he
resettled in Greece years ago. And, substantial evidence supports the Immigration
Judge’s conclusion that Isufi’s threat of future harm in Albania emanates from a
family dispute in one city in Albania—not from political persecution. Isufi also
has not challenged the Immigration Judge’s conclusion or the Board’s conclusion
that he could avoid any harm he fears by relocating within Albania. He has,
4
Case: 14-15753 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 5 of 6
therefore, waived any challenge to these conclusions. Ruiz v. United States Att’y
Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1256 n.6 (11th Cir. 2006); see Mazariegos, 241 F.3d at1324–25 n.2 (a withholding of removal claim cannot survive if asylum is denied).
Isufi’s second and third contentions involve Greece. He contends that the
Board failed to adequately address evidence demonstrating that he was not safe in
Greece and, therefore, could not resettle there and find “safe haven” in Greece.
These two contentions are meritless. To qualify for withholding of removal, the
applicant must show that if returned to his home country, his “life or freedom
would be threatened in the country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(A). The petitioner must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that
he will be persecuted or tortured upon removal to his country. Tan, 446 F.3d at
1375. Isufi proffered no evidence to support a finding that he had been tortured by
persons acting on behalf of the Albanian government, and no evidence that such
torture is more likely than not to occur upon his return to Albania.
IV. Conclusion
We have considered the record, and the opinions of both the Immigration
Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. We find no errors of law, and the
Immigration Judge’s findings of fact, with which the Board of Immigration
Appeals agreed, are supported by substantial evidence.
5
Case: 14-15753 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 6 of 6
PETITION DENIED.
6