11-5271
Agaj v. Holder
BIA
Straus, IJ
A027 271 131
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 23rd day of October, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 MEHMET AGAJ, AKA AGAJ MOHMET,
14
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-5271
18 NAC
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Sokol Braha, New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Thomas B.
29 Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel;
30 Annette M. Wietecha, Attorney,
31 Office of Immigration Litigation,
32 United States Department of Justice,
33 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 Petitioner Mehmet Agaj, a native and citizen of
6 Albania, seeks review of a November 30, 2011, order of the
7 BIA affirming the November 2, 2009, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus, which denied Agaj’s
9 application for withholding of removal and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mehmet Agaj, No.
11 A027 271 131 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2011), aff’g No. A027 271 131
12 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Nov. 2, 2009). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have
16 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the
17 sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237
18 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks
19 omitted). The applicable standards of review are well-
20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
21 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
22 Agaj challenges only the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
23 arguing that the IJ applied an erroneously high burden of
2
1 proof by requiring him to show that he would be “singled
2 out” for torture. However, based on the evidence Agaj
3 submitted in support of his application for CAT relief,
4 including his testimony that he feared returning to Albania
5 because of threats he received in 1995, the agency did not
6 err in concluding that Agaj failed to meet his burden of
7 showing that he, in particular, would likely be tortured by
8 Albanian government officials. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S.
9 Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2005) (denying
10 petition seeking CAT relief for failing to provide
11 “particularized evidence to support [petitioner’s] claim”);
12 see also Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 143-44 (2d
13 Cir. 2003) (denying habeas petition seeking CAT relief for
14 failing to establish that “someone in his particular alleged
15 circumstances is more likely than not to be tortured”
16 (emphasis omitted)); see also Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421
17 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“In the absence
18 of solid support in the record for [petitioner’s claim], his
19 fear is speculative at best.”).
20 Agaj also argues that the IJ erroneously required him
21 to show a pattern or practice of persecution. However, the
22 IJ appropriately considered all of the evidence in
3
1 determining whether Agaj established it was more likely than
2 not that he would be tortured in Albania. 8 C.F.R.
3 § 1208.16(c)(2). Moreover, even assuming that the IJ
4 misstated and misapplied the law, there is no error
5 requiring remand because the BIA applied the correct legal
6 standard in denying CAT relief. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
7 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this
10 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
11 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
12 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
4