09-1133-ag
Muca v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A047 279 580
A047 279 581
A047 279 582
A047 279 583
A047 279 584
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 SUM MARY 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 16 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 SANIJE MUCA, VULNET MUCA, ENGJELL MUCA,
14 RILIND MUCA, MILOT MUCA,
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 09-1133-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 __________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONERS: Sokol Braha, New York, New York.
25
26 F O R RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General, Civil Division; Francis W.
1 Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel;
2 Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney,
3 Office of Immigration Litigation,
4 U.S. Department of Justice,
5 Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
9 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
10 review is DENIED.
11 Petitioners, all citizens of Macedonia, seek review of a
12 February 24, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the June 4,
13 2007 decision of Immigration Judge Robert D. Weisel, denying
14 their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
16 Muca, Nos. A047 279 580/581/582/583/584 (B.I.A. Feb. 24,
17 2009), aff’g Nos. A047 279 580/581/582/583/584 (Immig. Ct.
18 N.Y. City June 4, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity
19 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
20 case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
22 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
23 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
24 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
25 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
2
1 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2 The agency properly found that petitioners failed to
3 establish a well-founded fear of persecution, as required
4 for a grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The IJ
5 provided a reasoned and detailed analysis of the record and
6 determined that, while the evidence indicated that ethnic
7 Albanians experience “discrimination and harassment” in
8 Macedonia, the record did not support a finding that they
9 would face persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of
10 Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that harm
11 must be sufficiently severe and rise above “mere
12 harassment”); see also Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d
13 Cir. 1993) (“[P]ersecution does not encompass all treatment
14 that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful
15 or unconstitutional.”). With respect to petitioners’
16 arguments regarding the potential harm faced by military
17 recruits and the disabled, we are not compelled to reach a
18 conclusion contrary to that of the agency. See Siewe v.
19 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) . Ultimately, the
20 agency reasonably found that the record did not support a
21 finding that petitioners’ fear was objectively reasonable.
22 See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
3
1 (holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it
2 lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely
3 “speculative at best”).
4 Insofar as petitioners failed to meet their burden of
5 proof with respect to asylum, they necessarily failed to
6 meet the higher burden of proof required to prevail on their
7 claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
8 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, because
9 petitioners failed to challenge the denial of their CAT
10 claim either before the BIA or this Court, we deem any such
11 argument abandoned. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716,
12 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007) .
13 Finally, we find no error in the BIA’s refusal to enjoin
14 petitioners’ removal based on their allegation that the
15 government delayed placing them in removal proceedings.
16 Rather than showing that the government engaged in
17 “affirmative misconduct,” the record reveals that
18 petitioners played a role in any delay by pursuing visas for
19 which they were ineligible. See Ajdin v. BCIS, 437 F.3d
20 261, 266 (2d Cir. 2006) ; see also Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235
21 F.3d 115, 126 (2d Cir. 2000) . To the extent petitioners’
22 brief can be read to request that this Court enjoin their
4
1 removal, we decline that request.
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
7 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
8 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
9 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
14
5