[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 19, 2005
No. 04-11707
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Docket Nos. A78-616-691&
A78-616
BESIM BELAJ,
ALTIN BELAJ, et al.,
Petitioners-Appellants,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(April 19, 2005)
Before BARKETT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Besim Belaj (“Belaj”),1 Gezime Belaj, Altin Belaj, and Ali Belaj, appearing
pro se, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and withholding of
removal under the Immigration Nationality Act (“INA”) and the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (“CAT”).2
On appeal, Belaj contends that the IJ erred in denying him asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT, and also erred in determining
that he did not provide credible evidence as to his identity. Belaj further asserts
that the IJ erred in not allowing Belaj’s expert witness to testify, thus, violating his
Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Belaj’s petition for review must be denied. As to the claims for asylum and
withholding of removal, substantial evidence exists to support the BIA’s decision
that Belaj failed to meet his burden of proof to establish, with credible evidence,
his identity and refugee status. Because we affirm the decision that Belaj failed to
1
Belaj is the primary applicant. His wife and children are derivative applicants and, therefore,
rely on Belaj’s asylum application.
2
Because Belaj’s removal proceedings commenced after April 1, 1997, the permanent rules
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Publ. L. No. 104-208,
110 Stat. 3009 (1996) apply.
2
establish his identity and nationality and failed to give credible testimony, we need
not address the additional issues Belaj raises pertaining to his claim for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Belaj is similarly unsuccessful in his due process claim. Belaj is unable to
show that not allowing the expert witness to testify caused him “substantial
prejudice” because he failed to demonstrate that the expert’s testimony was would
have been material to establishing Belaj’s identity. See Lonyem v. United States
Attorney Gen., 352 F.3d 1338, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2003) (“To establish due
process violations in removal proceedings, aliens must show that they were
deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the asserted errors caused
them substantial prejudice.”).
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible
error.
PETITION DENIED.
3