FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 19, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12905 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 442- 959 L U L Z I M M I T A J , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on o f th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 19, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, Inhumane or DegradingTreatment or 1 Punishm ent, June 26, 1987, S. Trea ty Doc. No. 100- 200, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, re printed in 233 I .L .M. 1027 (1984). 2 P E R C U R I A M: P e t i t i one rL ul z i m M i t a

j ( M i t a j ) f i l e d a t i m e l y pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the di sm i ss al by the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( B oard) of the Im m i grat i on C ou rt J u d g e ’ s ( I J ) d e n i a l o f

h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( th e I N A ) ( f

o rin d iv id u a ls w h o h a v e s u f f e r e d p e r s e c u tio n in th e p a s t, 8 C .F . R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , o rw h o h a v e a “w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r ” th a t th e y w o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d in the future w er e they t o return t o thei r hom e c ou ntry , 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b)( 2)), w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde r8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) ( the I N A ) , a nd pr ot e c t i on u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e ( th e C A T ) . M ita j p e titio n s th is c o u r t to 1 re vers e or vaca t e the B oard’ s dec i si on and rem and h i s app l i ca t i on for f urther consi dera t i on . T he re spon dent , the A tt orney G ener al of the U ni t ed S t at es , as ks that we d e n y Mi t a

j ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. M i t a j i s a c i t i z e n of

A l ba ni a . H e e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 2002 a nd appl i e d f ora s y l um i n 2004. M i t a j t e s t i f i e d be f or e the I J tha the pe r f

or m e d the r e q u ir e d A lb a n ia n m ilita ry s e r v ic e in 1 9 9 7 , a n d jo in e d th e A lb a n ia n D e m o c r a tic P arty. H e des cr i bed three encoun t er s w i th m em bers of the S oci al i stparty over aThe incidents are: ( 1) in 1997, while ser ving in the military

he wa s guardinga we apons 2 depot when Socialist P arty members attempted to loot the depot, gunf ire wa s exchang ed, and Mitaj was wounded in the le g ; (2) in 2001, while ser ving a s an ele ctions observer for the Democratic Party, two Socialist P arty members a

pproached him, threatened him, hit him in the fac e, bloodied his nose, and f orce d him to leave the pollingplace ; and (3) in 2002, thre e maske d plainclothes police of

ficers sea rche d Mitaj’s house, took him to the police station and interrog ate d him o vernight. 3 s p a n o f f i v e y e a r s i n s u p p o r to f

h i s p e t i t i o n f

o ra s y l u m. 2 W hi l e the I J f

ound M i t a

j ’ s t e s t i m ony c r e di bl e , he f ound hi m i ne l i gi bl e f

or a s y l um be c a us e : ( 1) the i nc i de nt s M i t a j de s c r i be d di d nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof

a pr ot e c t e d gr ound; a nd ( 2) M i t a j di d notha ve a w e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof future pers ec ut i on w er e he t o return t o A l bani a, i n l i gh tof the m arked i m p ro v em en ti n th e p o l i t i cal an d h u m an ri g h t s si tu at i o n th ere i n recen tyears. O u rs ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w o f

p e titio n s f

o rr e v ie w s u c h a s th e s e is v e ry lim ite d . U nde rthe I N A , the A tt orne y G e ne r a l ’ s di s c r e t i ona ry j udgm e ntw he the rt o gr a nt a s y l um “ s ha l l be c onc l us i ve unl e s s m a ni f e s t l y c ontr a ryt o l a w a nd a n abus e of di s c r e t i on. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( D ) . F ur the r m or e , “ the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f i ndi ngs of f a c t[ by the I J ] a r e c onc l us i ve unl e s s a ny r e a s onabl e a dj udi c a t orw oul d be c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) . I n a d d itio n to th is , w e r e v ie w th e r e c o r d e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e a g e n c y d e c is io n a n d d r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s in its f

a v o r . Se e For

gue v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). T he agency has grea t th di s c r e t i on a nd w e w i l l a f f i r m the a ge nc y ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s “ s uppor t e d byAs to the threeincidents: (1) the IJrea sonably found that the 1997 c onfrontation at the 3 wea pons depot was in the perfor manceof Mitaj’s military duty , not persecution on account of his polit ical opinion, see Castillo-Ariasa v. U.S. Att’y Gen ., 446 F.3d 1190, 1197- 98 (11 Cir. th 2006); (2) theIJrea sonably found that the 2001 c onfrontation at the pollingplacewas a n eff ort to interfere with his officeduties as an e lections observer, rather than a perse cution on acc ount of his polit ical opinion, see Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 440 F.3d 1247, 1258- 59 (11 Cir. 2006); and th (3) the IJrea sonably

found that the 2002 overnight detention and questioningby the police wa s within the ordinary

bounds of ac cepte d police conduc t and did not rise to the level of perse cution. See Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 451 F.3d 1287, 1291 ( 11 Cir. 2006). th 4 reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w ho l e. ” I

d. T o revers e the agency’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s, w e m ustfi nd thatthe re cord e v id e n c e , n o t o n ly s u p p o r ts r e v e r s a l, b u t c o m p e ls it. Se e I N S. v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . 47 8, 48 1 n . 1 (19 92 ). W e h av e r ev iew ed th e r ec o rd in th is ca se , th e I J d ec isio n an d th e B o ar d ’s o r d e r , to g e th e rw ith th e b r ie f s a n d th e a r g u m e n ts o f

c o u n s e l c o n ta in e d th e r e in . U nd erou r l i m i t ed st andard of revi ew , w e a gree w i th the IJthatno ne of the three i nci dent s des cr i bed b y M i t aj , thatspan ov era f i ve ye art i m e per i od , ei ther s e pa r a t e l y ori n c om bi na t i on, c om pe l the c onc l us i on tha the w a s pe r s e c ut e d i n the p a s t o rth a t h e h a s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . Se e E l i as - Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . a t 4 8 1 n .1 . I n f a c t, s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e I J ’s d e c is io n n o t to 3 wi th h o l d r e mo v a l u n d e re i th e rth e I NA o rth e CAT. B a s e d on the f

or e goi ng r e a s ons , M i t a

j ’ s pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w i s de ni e d. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.