18-3796
Mitaj v. Rosen
BIA
Navarro, IJ
A206 189 278
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 TO 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 8th day of January, two thousand twenty-one.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNY CHIN,
8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DANIEL MITAJ,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-3796
17 NAC
18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent. *
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, Law Office of
24 James A. Lombardi, P.C., New York,
25 New York.
26
*
Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically substituted for former
Attorney General William P. Barr.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
2 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy
3 S. Ferrier , Assistant Director;
4 Micah Engler, Trial Attorney,
5 Office of Immigration Litigation,
6 United States Department of
7 Justice, Washington, D.C.
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioner, Daniel Mitaj, a native and citizen of
13 Albania, seeks review of a November 29, 2018 decision of the
14 BIA affirming a November 15, 2017 decision of an Immigration
15 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
16 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
17 re Daniel Mitaj, No. A 206 189 278 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018),
18 aff’g No. A 206 189 278 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 15, 2017). We
19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
20 procedural history.
21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.
22 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528
23 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings under
24 the substantial evidence standard, upholding them so long as
25 “they are supported by reasonable, substantial[,] and
2
1 probative evidence in the record.” Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
2 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
3 omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that
4 “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
5 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
6 the contrary”); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282
7 (2d Cir. 2006). By contrast, we review questions of law and
8 the application of law to undisputed facts de novo. See
9 Yanqin Weng, 562 F.3d at 513; Edimo-Doualla, 464 F.3d at 281.
10 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant
11 must establish past persecution or a fear of future
12 persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C.
13 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b),
14 1208.16(b)(1), (2). The protected ground must be “at least
15 one central reason” for the claimed persecution, and the
16 applicant must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of
17 the persecutor’s motives. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)
18 (asylum); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding); Matter
19 of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 346–48 (B.I.A. 2010) (holding
20 that the “one central reason” standard also applies to
21 withholding of removal); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
3
1 483 (1992) (requiring “some evidence of [motive], direct or
2 circumstantial”).
3 Mitaj contends that he stated a claim of past persecution
4 and has a fear of future persecution on account of his
5 religion, political opinion, and membership in a particular
6 social group of “Roman Catholic[s] in Northern Albania.”
7 Specifically, he asserts that after he reported an individual
8 to the police for breaking into his church and stealing money,
9 that individual attacked, beat, and threatened him on
10 multiple occasions; he further avers that the police refused
11 to help him because the thief had connections to the police.
12 But throughout the hearing – in response to questions from
13 his own counsel, counsel for the Department of Homeland
14 Security, and the IJ – Mitaj testified that the beatings were
15 retaliation for his report to the police, and he did not offer
16 any evidence connecting them to a protected ground.
17 Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Mitaj
18 failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground as required
19 for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
20 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); Melgar de Torres v. Reno,
21 191 F.3d 307, 313–14 (2d Cir. 1999) (explaining that “general
22 crime conditions” and “random violence” cannot support asylum
4
1 claim); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (requiring “some
2 evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
5 stays VACATED.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
8 Clerk of Court
5