15-4183 

Vorfi v. Sessions 

BIA 

Nelson, IJ 

A205 046 574 / 575 / 576 / 577 

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 for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

6th 4 day of October, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 ZEF VORFI, AKA GEORGIO 

14 MOUSAILIDIS, MARINGLESTA HASHSYA, 

15 AKA CHRISTINA PECHLIVANDI, EMELI 

16 VORFI, AKA MARIA DIMITRA 

17 MOUSAILIDIS, ELVIN VORFI, AKA 

18 IOANNIS APAZIDIS, 

19 Petitioners, 

20 

21 v. 15-4183 

22 NAC 

23 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

24 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

25 Respondent. 

26 _____________________________________ 

27 

28 FOR PETITIONERS: Sokol Braha, New York, NY. 

29 

30 
2

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

2 Assistant Attorney General, Stephen 

3 J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert 

4 Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, 

5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

6 United States Department of Justice, 

7 Washington, DC. 

8 

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

12 DENIED. 

13 Petitioners Zef Vorfi (“Vorfi”), his wife Maringlesta 

14 Hashysa, and their minor children Elvin and Emili Vorfi, all 

15 citizens of Albania, seek review of a December 17, 2015, 

16 decision of the BIA affirming a April 20, 2015, decision of an 

17 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Vorfi’s application for 

18 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

19 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zef Vorfi, et al., No. A205 046 

20 574/575/576/577 (B.I.A. Dec. 17, 2015), aff’g No. A205 046 

21 574/575/576/577 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 20, 2015). We 

22 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

23 procedural history in this case. 

24 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. 

25 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 

26 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. 
3

1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship and 

2 Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2006). Vorfi 

3 applied for relief based on his fear of harm because he is 

4 Catholic and because he claims to be the victim of a blood feud. 

5 He alleges that his Muslim father-in-law threatened him, and 

6 that he feared that the father-in-law would harm him both in 

7 Albania (where he lived until 2001) and Greece (where he lived 

8 from 2001 to 2010). 

9 Vorfi had the burden to show that he feared future 

10 persecution by the Albanian or Greek government or “at the hands 

11 of an organization or person from which the government cannot 

12 or will not protect [him].” Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 

13 116 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

14 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). 

15 Substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that Vorfi 

16 failed to meet this burden. 

17 Vorfi argues that his father-in-law has ties with the 

18 Albanian government and was released from custody after 

19 stabbing a man. But Vorfi testified that his father-in-law was 

20 in fact arrested for the crime, was incarcerated, and afterwards 

21 had to leave Albania. He also testified that he never reported 

22 his father-in-law’s threats to the authorities, which subverts 
4

1 his claim that the Greek and Albanian governments were unwilling 

2 to protect him. Finally, even assuming that Vorfi’s situation 

3 involved a blood feud, the background materials presented by 

4 Vorfi show that the Albanian government was working to end blood 

5 feuds. None of Vorfi’s evidence demonstrated that the Greek 

6 or Albanian governments would not or could not protect him from 

7 his father-in-law, and “when a petitioner bears the burden of 

8 proof, his failure to adduce evidence can itself constitute the 

9 ‘substantial evidence’ necessary to support the agency’s 

10 challenged decision.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 

11 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 

12 Vorfi next argues that he could have presented additional 

13 evidence in support of his asylum claim, and that the IJ’s 

14 failure to request that evidence (and the BIA’s subsequent 

15 failure to remand the case to allow him to present it) 

16 demonstrates bad faith. “A motion to remand that relies on 

17 newly available evidence is held to the substantive 

18 requirements of a motion to reopen,” meaning that the BIA is 

19 afforded “broad discretion.” Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of 

20 Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005). We find no abuse 

21 of discretion in the BIA’s decision not to remand. See id.
5

1 (reviewing denial of a motion to remand for abuse of 

2 discretion). 

3 The BIA’s decision was not, as Vorfi claims, devoid of 

4 reasoning. Remand was denied because Vorfi did not demonstrate 

5 that his newly submitted evidence was previously unavailable 

6 and because the evidence would not have changed the result—-and 

7 either reason is sufficient. Vorfi contends that the evidence 

8 was somehow unavailable during the proceeding before the IJ 

9 because the IJ asked for other documents, but then faulted him 

10 for not calling his wife to testify or presenting the evidence 

11 he supplied with his motion to remand. Vorfi’s apparent 

12 argument is that he could have produced the additional evidence 

13 if only the IJ had asked. But “the alien bears the ultimate 

14 burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from the 

15 IJ.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 2009). 

16 Moreover, the IJ asked if Vorfi’s wife would testify, but 

17 Vorfi’s counsel declined. Accordingly, the IJ’s actions did 

18 not render Vorfi’s evidence unavailable, and the BIA’s decision 

19 was within its discretion. 

20 Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that 

21 Vorfi’s additional evidence would not have changed the result. 

22 Vorfi’s new evidence consisted of statements from his wife, his 
6

1 wife’s mother and brother, and his own brother, as well as 

2 materials showing racism against Albanians in Greece. The 

3 materials echo Vorfi’s testimony, but do not show that the 

4 Albanian authorities were aware of Vorfi’s situation, or that 

5 they failed to arrest Vorfi’s father-in-law the last time he 

6 stabbed a man. Nor do the materials establish that the Greek 

7 authorities were aware of Vorfi’s situation, or that they would 

8 be unwilling or unable to protect Vorfi if they knew. The 

9 conclusion--that Vorfi failed to meet his burden of 

10 demonstrating that the Albanian or Greek governments were 

11 unwilling or unable to protect him--would therefore have 

12 remained the same even with the new evidence. Accordingly, the 

13 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vorfi’s motion to 

14 remand. Li Yong Cao, 421 F.3d at 156. 

15 Finally, Vorfi claims that the BIA acted in bad faith by 

16 declining to rule on all of his arguments, but the BIA is not 

17 required to “expressly parse or refute on the record each 

18 individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the 

19 petitioner.” Wei Guang Wang v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 437 

20 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006). 

21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 
7

1 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

2 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

3 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

4 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

5 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

6 34.1(b). 

7 FOR THE COURT: 

8 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk