08-5419-ag
Kamolli v. Holder
BIA
DiCostanzo, IJ
A078 959 975
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 22 nd day of July, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
REENA RAGGI,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________
ARIAN KAMOLLI,
Petitioner,
v. 08-5419-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., * UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
__________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Fatos Koleci, Milford, Connecticut.
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
Assistant Director, Drew C.
Brinkman, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Arian Kamolli, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks
review of an October 10, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the
December 5, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
Lawrence N. DiCostanzo, denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Arian Kamolli, No. A078 959
975 (BIA Oct. 10, 2008), aff’g No. A078 959 975 (Immig. Ct.
Hartford Dec. 5, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity
with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
applicable standards of review are well-established.
2
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of
Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
Although Kamolli provided credible testimony that he
suffered past persecution, the agency concluded that the
government rebutted the presumption of Kamolli’s well-
founded fear of future persecution by showing changed
country conditions in Albania. See Niang v. Mukasey, 511
F.3d 138, 148-49 (2d Cir. 2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1).
The record shows that Kamolli was persecuted by members of
the Socialist Party on account of his membership in the
Democratic Party, which has since taken control of the
Albanian government. Accordingly, substantial evidence,
including Kamolli’s testimony and the State Department
country report, supports the agency’s determination that
Kamolli was not eligible for asylum based on a well-founded
fear of future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 184-88 (2d Cir. 2006).
Kamolli contends, however, that he is entitled to
“humanitarian asylum,” see Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 148,
151 (2d Cir. 2007), because notwithstanding his failure to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, he has
demonstrated “compelling reasons for being unwilling or
3
unable to return to [Albania] arising out of the severity of
the past persecution,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A).
Without minimizing the effects of beatings suffered by
Kamolli in Albania, we conclude that the record does not
compel a finding that Kamolli suffered the “long-lasting
physical or mental effects of . . . persecution” that would
warrant humanitarian asylum. Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d
at 152; see also Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217, 220 (2d
Cir. 2006) (stating that humanitarian asylum is reserved for
“certain rare cases”); Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16,
18-19 (BIA 1989).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4