10 -27 5-ag

P eraj v . Holder BIA Straus , IJ A098 880 544 A098 880 543 

### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RU L I N G S B Y S UMMAR Y O R D E RD O N O T H AVE P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I O N T O AS UMMAR Y O RDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RUL E 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 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 25 day of January, two thousand eleven. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges . 12

_______________________________________ 13 14 YLBER PERAJ, SUADA PERAJ, 15 16 Petitioners , 17 18 v. 10-275-ag 19 NAC 20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL 22 Respondent . 23

______________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Charles Christophe, Christophe & 26 Associates, P.C., New York, New 27 York. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 30 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, 31 Assistant Director; Franklin M. 32 Johnson, Jr., Trial Attorney, Office 33 of Immigration Litigation, Civil2 1 Division, United States Department 2 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioners Ylber Peraj and Suada Peraj, natives and 9 citizens of Albania, seek review of a January 7, 2010, order 1 0 of the BIA affirming the April 24, 2008, decision of 1 1 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus denying their 1 2 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 1 3 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ylber 1 4 Peraj, Suada Peraj , Nos. A098 880 544/43 (B.I.A. Jan. 7, 1 5 2010), aff’gNo. A098 880 544/43 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, 1 6 Conn. Apr. 24, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity 1 7 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 1 8 case. 1 9 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 0 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision, i.e. , minus 2 1 the arguments for denying relief that were not considered by 2 2 the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 2 3 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 2 4 review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);3 1 Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 The IJ found that the petitioners did not meet their 3 burden of proof because, inter alia , they provided no 4 documentation corroborating Ylber Peraj’s involvement with 5 the Legality Party and no medical evidence corroborating his 6 testimony that he was beaten by the police. In cases 7 applying the REAL ID Act, “an IJ, weighing the evidence to 8 determine if the alien has met his burden, may rely on the 9 absence of corroborating evidence adduced by an otherwise 1 0 credible applicant unless such evidence cannot be reasonably 1 1 obtained.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder , 575 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 1 2 2009) (dicta; concluding that pre-REAL ID Act standards 1 3 applied to Chuilu Liu’s proceedings). The petitioners argue 1 4 that the agency did not establish that such corroborating 1 5 evidence was reasonably available. However, the agency 1 6 found that corroboration was available because Ylber Peraj 1 7 testified that his family was involved with the Legality 1 8 Party in Albania and that his family doctor had treated him. 1 9 Petitioners have offered no evidence to show that 2 0 corroboration was unavailable. Accordingly, the agency 2 1 reasonably found that petitioners did not meet their burden 2 2 of proving their eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.4 1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu , 575 F.3d at 197-98. 2 Because petitioners were unable to show the objective 3 likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum 4 claim, and because their claims for withholding of removal 5 and CAT relief were based on the same factual predicate as 6 their asylum claim, they were necessarily unable to meet the 7 higher standard required to succeed on a claim for 8 withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 9 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Gomez v. INS , 947 F.2d 1 0 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991); Xue Hong , 426 F.3d at 523 (2d Cir. 1 1 2005) ; see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(B).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12 1 3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 7 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 8 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 9 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 2 0 FOR THE COURT: 2 1 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 2 2