11-3200
Krasniqi v. Holder
BIA
A089 252 652
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.
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 15th day of October, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 Labinot Krasniqi,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 11-3200
17 v. NAC
18
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Jennifer R.
30 Khouri, Trial Attorney, Office of
31 Immigration Litigation, Civil
32 Division, United States Department
33 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Labinot Krasniqi, a native of the former
6 Yugoslavia and a citizen of Kosovo, seeks review of an
7 August 5, 2011 decision of the BIA denying his motion to
8 reopen his removal proceedings. In re Labinot Krasniqi, No.
9 A089 252 652 (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 2011). We assume the parties’
10 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
11 of the case.
12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
13 abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
14 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The BIA “ordinarily will not grant
15 [a motion to reopen] unless the movant has met the ‘heavy
16 burden’ of demonstrating a likelihood that the new evidence
17 presented would alter the result in the case.” Li Yong Cao
18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 In other words, where a movant seeks to reopen removal
20 proceedings involving the denial of asylum, the BIA may deny
21 relief based on “the movant’s failure to make a prima facie
22 case of eligibility for asylum.” Id. (citing INS v.
2
1 Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)).
2 Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
3 Krasniqi’s motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to
4 establish that the evidence presented in his motion would
5 likely alter the result in the case. The evidence at issue
6 did not suggest that the government in Kosovo was or would
7 be unwilling or unable to protect him from his alleged
8 persecutors—Stankon Reskovich, a private citizen, and former
9 members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (“KLA”). See
10 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d
11 Cir. 2006) (“[P]rivate acts may be persecution [for asylum
12 purposes] if the government has proved unwilling to control
13 such actions.”). Moreover, the evidence at issue did not
14 undermine the agency’s conclusion that Krasniqi failed to
15 establish that he was persecuted, or had a well-founded fear
16 of future persecution, on account of a protected ground.
17 See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Because the BIA reasonably
18 concluded that Krasniqi failed to establish prima facie
19 eligibility for asylum, it did not abuse its discretion in
20 denying his motion to reopen. See Li Yong Cao, 421 F.3d at
21 156. In light of this conclusion, we decline to reach the
22 issue of whether the evidence presented with Krasniqi’s
3
1 motion was previously available within the meaning of 8
2 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
7 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4