F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 8 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1517 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ BI AN o. A 78- 317- 718 PAVLIN FRROKU, Petitioner, ve rs us U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, Re spon de nt.

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

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 8, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and A N D E RS O N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:On appe al, Fr roku does not off

er a rgument on the denial of

withholding of r emoval or CAT 1 relief ; theref ore, the se claims are abandone d. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that petitioner aba ndons issue by

failingto offer

argument on that issue). 2 Pavli n F rr oku, anativ e an d c iti ze n of A lbania , pe tit ion s f

or r ev ie wof

the af fi rm an ce by

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s ( “ BI A ”) of the de ci sio n of

the Im m igr at ionJud ge ( “ IJ ”) . T he de ci sio n de nie d a sy lum , w ith hol din g of r em ova l, an d r el ie f unde r the U nit ed N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, Inhum an , or

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or

P uni shm en t ( “ CA T ”) . N o r ev er sib le e rr or 1 ha s be ensho w n; w e de ny the pe tit ion . W e re vie wthe I J’ s de ci sio n inthi s c as e, not the BI A ’ s, be ca

use the BIAaff irm ed the IJ’ s decision withou t an opini on. Se e Mendoza v. U. S. Attorney Ge n., 327 F.3d 1283 , 1284 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003). An I J’ s factual deter m ination that an alien is not entitl ed to asy lum “ m ust be uph eld if it is supp orted by subst antial evidence.” Mazariegos v. U .S . A ttorney Ge n., 241 F.3d 1320 , 1323 (11th Cir. 2001 ). “ U nde r thi s hi ghl y de fe re nti al te st, w e af

fi rm the I J’ s de ci sio n if

it is supp orted by

rea sonable, substan tial, and probativ e evidence on the rec ord co nsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” F or gue v. U . S. A tto rn ey G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 282, 128 6 ( 11th Cir. 2005 ) (internal quotation and alteration om itted). “ To r everse the I J’ s fact3

finding s, w e m

ust find th at the rec ord not on ly suppo rts rever sal, but com pels it.” Me ndoz a, 327 F . 3d at 12 87. A n a lie n m ay

obt ai n a sy lum

if he is a “ re fu ge e, ” that i s, ape rs on unable or unwilling to return to his coun try of nationality“because of perse cution o r a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of ” a pr ote ct ed

gr ound , inc lud ing pol iti ca l op ini on. 8 U . S. C. §§ 1 101( a) (4 2) (A ); 115 8( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). T he a sy lum ap pli cant b ears the bur de n of pr ovi ng s tatut or

y “ re fu ge e” status w ithspe ci fi c an d cred ib le ev id en ce. Al Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Fr ro ku t es tif

ie d th at he w as an a ct ive m em

be r of the D em oc ratic P ar

ty in A lbania and tha t he or ganiz ed

m ee tin gs t o su

ppor t the D em oc ratic P ar

ty . I n 19 98, the pol ic e cam e to o ne of F rr oku’ s m ee tin gs and “be at [ him ] up. ” F rr oku did

not experience a dditi onal problem s until June 200 1, when three m en entered an Albanian pollin g station that Frr oku andhis uncle were observing and exchanged the ba llo t bo xe s. A ft er

F rr oku tol d th e m enthat the ba llo t bo xe s sh oul d no t be to uc he d, t he po li ce t oo k F rro ku an d h is un cl e to th e p ol ic e st at io n a ndbe atth em . T he pol ic e al so thr eate ne d F rr oku; but the y r el ea se d F rr oku an d hi s un cl e the ne xt da y . InO ct obe r 2001 , the pol ic e int er ru pte d aD em oc ratic P ar

ty m ee tin g; and they took Frroku to th e police station, wher e they held him for tw o day s and beatThe I J noted that some of F rroku’ s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application and 2 that, a lth ou g h th e se dif

fe re nc e s w e re no t maj or inco ns ist e nc ie s, the y did hin de r h is o ve ra ll cre dibilit y . Be cause an I J must make a c lean deter mination of cre dibilit y , we will assume that the I J ’s statement a

bout Frr oku’s cr edibility

was n o t d i s p o s i t i ve of F rroku’ s claims in this case. See Yangv. U.S. Attorney Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that an I J ’s comments that the pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims we re a “ ri dic ulo us fa

br ic atio n” and

that he r t e sti mony was “ e xtre me ly inconsistent and made a bsolutel y n o sense whatsoever” was not an e x plicit finding that the petitioner’s testimony

was not cr edible). 4 him . I n Apr il 2002 , F rr oku an d hi s un cl e atte nde d am ee tin g of D em oc ratic P ar

ty supp orters. When the poli ce enter ed the m eeting, Fr roku ran aw ay ; and he later left A lbania. A fter F rroku arrived in the U nited States, his parents, who re m ained in Albania, told h im

that the police had com e to their house two or three tim es look ing for him . No char ges wer e ever brought against Frroku; but hi s parents had re ce ive d asum

m ons fo r him

to ap pe ar in co urt. Substantial evid ence supports th e determ ination that Frr oku failed to m eet his bur de n th at

he ha d be enpe rs ec ute d, or that he f ac ed aw el l- fo unde d f

ear of futur e pe rs ec uti on, on a

pr ote ct ed

gr ound . “ [P ] er se cutio n is an e xtr em e co nc ep t,

2 re qui ri ng m or e than af

ewiso late d in ci de nts of

ve rb al hara ssm ent or

int im idatio n, and . . . . m ere harassm ent does no t am ountto persecution.” Se pulv eda v. U .S . Att orne y Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 26 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d) .

“ T o qu al if

y a s pe rs ec uti on, ape rs on’ s e xpe ri en ce m ust r ise above unp le as an tne ss, hara ssm en t, and e ve n ba sic suf fe ri ng. ” N el son v. I N S, 232 F . 3d 2 58, 263 -6 4 ( 1st5

Cir. 2000 ) (deter

m ining that “ three episodes of solitary confinem ent of less than 72 ho ur s, ea ch acco m

pa ni edby physic al ab us e” d idno t co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on ). D et en tio n do es not

ne ce ssari ly

r ise to the le ve l of

pe rs ec uti on. Z he ng v . U. S. Attorney

Ge n., 451 F.3d 1287 , 1290-91 (11 Cir. 2006 ) (c onclud ing th at th petition er’ s claim

of five-day

detention in China did no t constitu te persecution); se e al so D an dan v. A shc ro ft , 339 F . 3d 5 67, 573 -7 4 ( 7thCi r. 200 3) ( de te rm ini ng no p er se cutio n whe n pe tit ion er w as de ta ine d f

or thr ee day s w ith out

f ood dur ing w hic h ti m e he w as be at en , r es ult ing in sw oll enf ac e) ; P ra sa d v. I N S, 47 F . 3d 3 36, 339 (9 th C ir . 199 5) ( no p er se cutio n whe n pe tit ion er w as he ld i n de te nti on f

or f our to s ix h our s, hit

in the sto m ac h, and k ic ke d f ro m be hin d) ; K ap ci a v. I N S, 944 F . 2d 702, 704, 708 (10t h Cir. 1991 ) (c onclud ing th at no persecution exist ed wher e pe ti ti on er was “ arre st edfou r ti m es , det ai ne d t hr ee t im es , andbe at en on ce”) . Frr oku d id nottestify

that he wa s injured by

the police; and he was not charged w ithac ri m e. H is c la im

of br ie f de te nti ons ove r a pe ri od o f a fe wy ears doe s no t co m pe l us to re ve rs e the I J’ s c onc lus ionthat this c ondu ct w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o de m on st rat e p as t p ers ecu ti on . Su bst an tia l e vid en ce a lso sup ports the c onc lus ionthat F rr oku did not de m onstrate aw el l- fo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on. A s th e IJnot ed , F rr oku fa ile d to sho wthat hi s sum m ons w as c onne ct ed

to his part ic ipatio n w iththe6

D em oc ratic P ar

ty . S ee S ep ulv ed a, 401 F . 3d at 12 31 ( expla ini ng tha t, to de m onstrate aw el l- fo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on, the a lie n m ust “ es ta bli sh a cau sa l co nn ect io n b et ween th e p ol it ic al op in io n a ndth e fea redpe rs ecu ti on ”). T he re fo re , the e vid en ce doe s no t c om pe l the c onc lus ionthat F rr oku is e lig ibl e fo r as y lu m . PETITION DENIED.