08-4850-ag
Krasniqi v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A099 683 389
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
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 11 th day of December, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROGER J. MINER,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 RIKARD KRASNIQI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 08-4850-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY
20 GENERAL, 1
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
1
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.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, New
2 York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General, Susan Houser, Senior
6 Litigation Counsel, Steven F. Day,
7 Trial Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, Civil
9 Division, United States Department
10 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Rikard Krasniqi, a native of the former
6 Yugoslavia, seeks review of a September 4, 2008 order of the
7 BIA affirming the May 18, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, denying his applications for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rikard Krasniqi,
11 No. A099 683 389 (B.I.A. Sep. 4, 2008), aff’g No. A099 683
12 389 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2007). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of the case.
15 When the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision in some respects
16 but not others, this Court reviews the IJ’s decision as
17 modified by the BIA decision, i.e., minus the arguments for
2
1 denying relief that were rejected by the BIA. 1 See Xue Hong
2 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.
3 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings under the
4 substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
5 see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
6 We review de novo questions of law and the application of
7 law to undisputed fact. See, e.g., Salimatou Bah v.
8 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
9 As an initial matter, there is no merit to Krasniqi’s
10 argument that the BIA erred by declining to review the IJ’s
11 adverse credibility finding. The BIA is not required to
12 address all of the bases for the IJ’s decision and may,
13 instead, affirm the IJ’s decision in only some respects or,
14 indeed, not at all. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3); Xue Hong
15 Yang, 426 F.3d at 522.
16 The record supports the agency’s conclusion that
17 Krasniqi did not demonstrate that he suffered past
18 persecution. Past persecution requires that the harm be
19 sufficiently severe, rising above “mere harassment.”
20 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341
21 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the agency reasonably found that the
1
We assume for purposes of our analysis that the BIA
rejected the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See
Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
3
1 “harassment and single episode of violence Krasniqi endured,
2 which did not require medical attention, [did] not rise to
3 the severe nature of persecution.” Although Krasniqi
4 claimed to have suffered a bloody nose during the incident,
5 the agency correctly determined that this was insufficiently
6 severe to constitute persecution, particularly because the
7 incident did not occur while Krasniqi was in custody. Cf.
8 Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226 (2d Cir. 2006)
9 (cautioning the BIA to be “keenly sensitive” to the fact
10 that a “minor beating, or for that matter, any physical
11 degradation designed to cause pain, humiliation, or other
12 suffering, may rise to the level of persecution if it
13 occurred in the context of an arrest or detention on the
14 basis of a protected ground”).
15 Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
16 conclusion that Krasniqi failed to demonstrate that he had a
17 well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
18 § 1101(a)(42). Krasniqi argues that his fear of Albanian
19 extremists is objectively reasonable because he was involved
20 with the Democratic Party and previously assisted the Serbs.
21 However, as the BIA found, the evidence “[did] not indicate
22 that the Democratic Christian Party, for which [Krasniqi]
23 worked, [was] targeted for violence by Albanian extremists,”
4
1 and in any event, he did not show that he could not relocate
2 to another part of the country. Indeed, although Krasniqi
3 testified that he felt unsafe after he briefly relocated to
4 his grandparents’ house in another part of Kosovo, he
5 acknowledged that he had not been harassed there. See
6 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Thus, the BIA properly found
7 that Krasniqi was ineligible for asylum relief.
8 Because Krasniqi failed to establish the objective
9 likelihood of persecution required to establish eligibility
10 for asylum, his withholding of removal and CAT claims were
11 properly rejected. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156
12 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang, 426 F.3d at 523.
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
21
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
25
26 By:____________________________
5