Case ID: f-appx_269/html/0013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Senada NDREKA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-2019.
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    March 14, 2008.
    Charles Christophe and Christophe & Associates, P.C., on brief for Petitioner.
    Briena L. Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, on brief for respondent.
    Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Senada Ndreka seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) denial of her appeal. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, and we affirm. See López de Hincapié v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213, 218-220 (1st Cir. 2007).

Ndreka cannot qualify as a refugee unless she was persecuted based on a protected ground. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 428, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Although Ndreka argues she was subject to persecution based on her political opinion, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Ndreka was targeted by criminals interested in using her for sex trafficking and not because of her political opinion. Thus, she is not entitled to asylum relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). Because Ndreka failed to show that she was persecuted based on a protected ground for asylum eligibility purposes, she likewise fails in her application for withholding of removal. See López de Hincapié, 494 F.3d at 220.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Ndreka has not shown it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or at the acquiescence of a government official upon her return to Albania, and the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture was therefore appropriate. See Xue Deng Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir.2007).

Therefore, Ndreka’s petition for review is denied.

It is so ordered.