10-275-ag

Peraj v. Holder

BIA

Straus, IJ

A098 880 544

A098 880 543

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 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, Civil
2

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

10 of the BIA affirming the April 24, 2008, decision of

11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus denying their

12 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

13 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ylber

14 Peraj, Suada Peraj, Nos. A098 880 544/43 (B.I.A. Jan. 7,

15 2010), aff’g No. A098 880 544/43 (Immig. Ct. Hartford,

16 Conn. Apr. 24, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity

17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this

18 case.

19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

20 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision, i.e., minus

21 the arguments for denying relief that were not considered by

22 the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426

23 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of

24 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

10 credible applicant unless such evidence cannot be reasonably

11 obtained.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir.

12 2009) (dicta; concluding that pre-REAL ID Act standards

13 applied to Chuilu Liu’s proceedings). The petitioners argue

14 that the agency did not establish that such corroborating

15 evidence was reasonably available. However, the agency

16 found that corroboration was available because Ylber Peraj

17 testified that his family was involved with the Legality

18 Party in Albania and that his family doctor had treated him. 

19 Petitioners have offered no evidence to show that

20 corroboration was unavailable. Accordingly, the agency

21 reasonably found that petitioners did not meet their burden

22 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

10 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991); Xue Hong, 426 F.3d at 523 (2d Cir.

11 2005); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(B).

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

19 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

22