FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 4, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1526 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N os. A 79- 443- 200 & A 79- 443- 201 G RA MO S RA MA J, KEKERET RAMAJ, etal., Pe tit ion er s, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 4, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pe tit ion er s G ram os R am aj ( “ G ram os” ), K ek er et Ram aj ( “ K ek er et ”) , E lvi s Ram aj (“ Elvis”), Flutura Ram aj (“ Flutura”), and Alona Ram aj (“ Alona”) (c oll ec tiv el y

“ Ram aj s” or

“ Pe tit ion er s” ), thr oughc ouns el , pe tit ionf or r ev ie wof2

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( “ BI A ’ s” ) dis m iss al of the ir appe al f ro m the im m igration judge’ s (“ IJ’ s”) re m oval order. On appeal, the petition ers ar gue that the BIAerr ed by

deny ing th eir m otion to reopen based upo n ineffectiveas si st an ce-o f-co un se l. W e re vie wthe BI A ’ s de nia l of am oti on t o r eo pe n f

or an a buse of di sc ret io n. See M

ej ia R odri

gue z v . R en o , 17 8 F .3d11 39 , 11 45 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Judicial review of a denial of a m otion to reopen in rem oval proceedings is lim ited to d et er m ini ng “ w he the r the re ha s be enan e xe rc ise of a dm ini str at ive dis cr et ion and whether the m atter of e xercise has been ar bitrary or capric ious.” G arc ia-

M ir v. Sm ith , 766 F. 2d 14 78, 1490 (11t h Cir. 1985 ) (c itation o m itted). T he BIAabuses its dis cr et ionw he n it s de ci sio n “pr ovi de s no r at ion al e xpl an at ion , ine xpl ic ab ly de part s f ro m e sta bli she d po lic ie s, is de voi d of any r ea soni ng, or

c ont ai ns o nly summ ary or conclusory

statem ents.” Mick

eviciute v. INS , 327 F . 3d 1 159, 116 2 (1 0thCi r. 200 3) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). Mo tio ns t o r eo pe n are , how ev er , dis favor ed , es pe ci al ly in a re m ova l pr oc ee din g, “ w he re , a s age ne ra l m atte r, e ve ry de lay w orks to the a dvanta ge of

the [ re m ova

ble ] a lie n w ho w ish es m er el y to re m ai n inthe United States. ” IN

S v . D ohe rty , 502 U . S. 314 , 323 , 112 S . Ct . 719 , 724 -2 5, 116 L. Ed. 2d 82 3 (1992).3

“ It is w el l e sta

bli she d th at

a lie ns e nj oy

the r igh t t o th e ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of counsel in d eportation proceeding s.” G bay a v . U . S. A tty . G en . , 342 F . 3d 1 219, 1221 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( int er na l qu otatio ns and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ T o e sta bli sh the ineffec tive assistance of counsel in th e context of a deportation hearing, an alien m ust establis h that his o r her c ouns el's perf orm ance w as deficient to the point th at it im ping ed the 'f

undam ental fairness' of the hearing.” Id . ( int er na l qu otatio ns and citation om itted). T he BIAhas required that, when filing a m otion to reopen based on a claim

of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel, the alien m ust (1) subm it an af fi da vit a tte sti ng t o th e re le vant f ac ts; ( 2) inf

orm f orm er c ouns el of

the al le gatio ns and a llo wan op portun ity to re spon d; and ( 3) if

a sse rt ing that the pr ior co unse l' s handl ing of

the c as e vio la te d e thi ca l or le ga l r es pons ibi lit ie s, state w he the r a co m

pla int ha s be enf

ile d w iththe appr opr ia te dis ci pli nary auth or iti es , an d, i f no t, wh y

no t. M att er of Lo zada , 19 I&N Dec. 6 37 , 63 9 (B IA). W e ha ve he ld tha t “ [t ] he BI A doe s no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

f ilt er ing ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el c la im s th ro ugh the sc re en ing r equir em en ts o f Lo zada .” Gbaya , 342 F . 3d at 12 23. I n Gbaya , w e af firm ed the denial by

the BIA of a petitioner’ s m otion to reopen based upo n ineffective-a ssistance-of-counsel w he re the pe tit ion er

f ai le d to : ( 1) sub m it ana ff idavit a tte sti ng t o th e re le vant f ac ts an d hi s a gr ee m en t w ithhis f orm er c ouns el , ( 2) inf

orm his f orm er c ouns el of

the4

al le gatio ns and g ive him

an op portun ity

to re spon d, and ( 3) pr es en t e vid en ce that a com plaint had b een filed w ith the bar association, hold ing th at the petitioner had failed to substan tially

com ply with the re quirem ents of Lo zada . Id . a t 12 21- 23. Beca use the record dem onstrates that the petitio ners failed to: (1) subm it an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts and their agre em ent with their form er counsel, (2) inform

their form er c ouns el of the allegations and giv e her an oppo rtunity

to respond, and (3) present evidence that a c om plaint had b een filed w iththe bar as soc ia tio n, w e co nc lud e that the BI A did not abuse it s di sc re tio n by de ny ing the pe tit ion er s’ m oti on t o r eo pe n ba se d up on a c la im of ine ff ec tiv e- as sis tanc e- of

-c ouns el . T he pe tit ion er s ne xt arg ue that the I J a buse d he r dis cr et ionby

de ny ing the ir m oti on f or ac ont inu an ce to ha ve doc um en ts, w hic h w er e w ri tte n inthe ir na tiv e A lbanian, tr an slate d in to E ngl ish . W e re vie wan I J’ s de nia l of am oti on f

or ac ont inu an ce f

or an a buse of di sc ret io n. See Olve ra v. I NS , 504 F . 2d 1 372, 137 4 ( 5thCi r. 197 4) ; see als o Al Kh ouriv . A shc rof

t , 362 F. 3d 46 1, 464 (8th Cir. 2004). Feder al regulations require that: A ny

f or ei gn l an gua ge doc um en t of fe re d by aparty in a pr oc ee din g sha ll be a cc om

panie d by an E ngl ishlangua ge tr an slatio n and a ce rt if ic at ionsig ne d by

the tr an slator

that m ust be pr int ed

le gib ly or5

ty pe d. S uc h c er

tif ic at ionm ust inc lud e a state m en t tha t the tr an slator is c om pe te nt t o tr an slate the doc um en t, and tha t the tr an slatio n is tr ue an d a cc ur at e to the be st o f the tr an slator ' s a bil iti es . 8 C . F. R. § 10 03. 33 Beca use the record dem onstrates that petitio ners never m oved the IJ for a co nti nuanc e in o rd er

that the ir doc um en ts c oul d be tr an slate d, w e co nc lud e that the IJ co ul d n ot ha ve ab us edhe r di sc ret io n. Finally , the petitioners argue that the IJ’ s decision d eny ing th em asy lum wa s not su pported bysubst antial evidence. T he BI A ’ s f

ac tua l de te rm inatio n th at

an a lie n is not

e nti tle d to a sy lum

“ m ust be uph eld if it is supp orted by subst antial evidence.” M azar ie gos v. U . S. A tto rne y G en . , 241 F . 3d 1 320, 132 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . U nde r thi s hi ghl y de fe re nti al standard

of r ev ie w , ade nia l of

a sy lum m ay be r ev er se d on ly

if the ev ide nc e w oul d c om

pe l a r ea sona ble f ac tf ind er to fi nd tha t the r equis ite f ear of pe rs ecu ti on ex is ts . IN

S v . E lia s- Za ca ria s , 502 U . S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S . Ct . 812 , 815 n .1, 117 L.E d.2d 38 (1992 ). A n a lie n w ho arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or asy lum . IN A § 208(a)( 1), 8 U .S .C. § 1158 (a)( 1). The A ttorney Ge neral has discretion to g rant asy lum if the alien m eets the IN A’ s definition of a “ refugee. ” IN A § 20 8( b) (1 ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( b) (1 ). A“ re fu ge e” is:6

an y p er s o n wh o i s o u t s i d e a n y co u n t ry o f s u ch p er s o n ’s na tio na lity

. . . and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s unable or unwilling to avail him self or herse lf of the protection of, that c ountry

be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, na tio na lity , m em be rs hip in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n . . . . 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t c ar

ri es the bur de n of

pr ovi ng st atut ory “ refu ge e” s ta tu s. Na

jja r v . A shc rof

t , 257 F. 3d 12 62, 1284 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). I f the appl ic an t m ee ts this bur de n, the n th e A tto rn ey G en er al m ay

e xe rc ise hi s d is cret io n t o g ran t t he ap pl ic an t as y lu m . Id . A n a lie n is e nti tle d to a sy lum if he c ane sta

bli sh, w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le evidence: (1) past persec ution on account of his m em bership in a particular social gr oup, or oth er statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor ; or ( 2) a“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” that hi s m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or oth er statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor w ill c au se fu tur e pe rs ec uti on. 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( a) , ( b) ; Na jja r , 2 5 7 F. 3 dat 1 2 8 7 . “ [A ]n ap pli cant m

ust de m onstrate that hi s he r fe ar of pe rs ec uti on i s su

bj ec tiv el y ge nui ne and objectively

rea sonable.” Na

jja r , 257 F . 3d at 12 89. E sta bli shi ng a ne xus betwee n the statuto rily

listed factor and the fe ared per secution “ requires the alien to p re se nt s pe ci fi c, de ta ile d f ac ts s how ing agoo d r ea son to f ear that he w ill be sin gle d ou t

forpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f” t he st atut or il y li st edfact or . Id

. a t 12 87 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n om itt ed ). I f the a lie n de m onstrate s pa st p er se cu tio n, he is7

pr es um ed to ha ve aw el l- fo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on unle ss the gov er nm en t can reb ut th e p res um

pt io n. 8 C.F.R § 20 8.1 3( b) (1 ). If , how ev er , the a lie n do es not e sta bli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on, he be ar s th e burden of sho wing a w ell-founded fear of future persec ution by showing that (1) he f ears per secution based o n his natio nality , or other protected fac tor, (2 ) the re is a re as ona

ble pos sib ili ty

that he w ill suf

fe r pe rs ec uti on i f re m ove d to his nativ e country , and (3) he could not avoid persecution b y relocating to another part of his c ountry , if

, und er a ll of the c ir cum stanc es , it

w oul d be r ea sona

ble to ex pe ctrel oc at io n. See 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(b)(2), ( 3)(i). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the BIA ’ s decision d eny ing asy lum , a s petition ers fa iled to sho w that they we re pe rs ec ute d ona cc ount

of astatut or ily

pr ote ct ed

gr ound . Fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we d en y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.