2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-22-2004 

# J a sh a nic a v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2027

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" J ash a nica v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 46. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/46*Honorable Louis H. Pol lak, Senior Dist rict Judge for the United States Dist rict Court for t

he Eastern Distri ct of Pennsy lvania , si tti ng by des ignati on. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-2027

___________ AGIM J ASHANI CA; AR DIT A S YL EJM AN I, Petitioners
v. JO HN AS HC RO FT , ATTOR NEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES,

Respondent

___________ On Petiti on for Review of a Decisi on by the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (No. A77-544-131 and No. A77-544-132)

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 16, 2004
Be for e: N YG AA RD and GA RT H, Circu it Judges .

an d POL LAK, * Distri ct Judge .2 (Fil ed December 22, 2004)

___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge .

Agim Jashanica and Ardita Sy lejmani (“Peti tioner s”) petiti on this Court for review of a fi nal order

of removal bythe Board of I mmigrati on Appeals. We have juri sdiction pursuant to 8 U.S. C. § 1252 and willdeny t he peti tion. I. Petitioners are ethnic Albani an nati ves of Kosovo. On February 10, 1999 they entered the U nited States w ithout valid entry docum ents and f or that reason w ere charged as removable by the former -INS. Petiti oners concede d removabil ity but sought asy lum, withholding of removal, and pr otection under t he Convention Agains t Torture, allegin g that, b ecau se of their M uslim faith, the y were perse cuted by Serb s from 199 6 to 1998. In support of thei r clai m, Syl ejmani testi fied befor e the Immigr ation J udge that t he Serbian army murdered her father and Jas hanica t esti fied that he was beat en by the Serbi an polic e. Findi ng Petitioners not credible becaus e of the l ack of corrobor ation
con cerni ng the mu rd erof S y le jma ni ’s fat

her , t he I mmig ra ti on J udg e de ni ed t hei r c la ims for re lief an d ord ered th eir rem oval f rom the U nited S tates. Pe titioners d id eve ntually3

obtain wh at purp orted to be a d eath c ertificate for S ylejman i’s fathe r and subs eque ntly ap pe ale d t o t he B oa rd by f ilin g a m ot io n t o r eo pe n a nd re m an d b as ed on th at n ew lyacquire d piece of evi dence. On March 12, 2003, the Board deni ed Petit ioners ’ motion and dismis sed thei r appeal . It held that even i f Petit

ioners had credi bly establ ished a clai m of past pers ecuti on, due t o changed country condi tions , the y no l onger posses sed a well-founde d fear of per secuti on. In t he absence of suc h fear, the Board expl ained, Petitioners were required to demonstr ate that the y were entitl ed to a humanit arian gr ant of asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(ii i). The Board found Petitioners had not done so and rejec ted th eir cl aim s fo r relie f. T his p etitio n fo llow ed. II. Wh ether P etitioner s are sta tutorily eligible for as ylum is a q uestion of fa ct, wh ich w e rev iew und er th e su bsta ntial evid enc e sta nda rd. Ga o v. A shcro ft , 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002) . Unde r this standard, w e upho ld the findings of the B oard if they are “support ed by r easonable , subst antia l, a nd probati ve evidence on t he record c onsider ed as a whole.” INS v. Eli as-Zacari as , 50 2 U . S. 47 8, 48 1 ( 19 92 ) ( qu ot ati on om i t t ed ) . We
revers e those fi ndings onl y when “the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusi on, but compels i t.” Abd ille v. Ash croft , 242 F.3d 477, 483–84 (3d Cir. 2001) (ci ting EliasZacarias , 504 U.S. at 481). Similarly , we will disturb the di scretionarydecisi ons of the Board onlyif the y ar e “arbi trary, irr ationa l, or contrary t o law.” Gu o v. A shcro ft , 386 F.3d 55 6, 562 (3d Cir. 2004 ).1. As Petitioners have not appeal ed the Board’ s denialof withholdi ng of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture, we need not address those issues. 4 III. Th e A ttorn ey G ene ral m ay gra nt as ylum to th ose qua lifying as re fug ees . Abd ille , 242 F.3d at 482 (citing 8 U .S.C. § 115 8(b)(1)). Refu gees are ind ividuals wh o are
unw illing or u nable to return to their h om e cou ntry “bec ause of p ersecu tion or a we llfounded fear of per secuti on on account of r ace, r eligi on, nationali ty , membershi p in a parti cular s ocial group, or political opinion. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101( a)(42) (A). An appli cant wh o dem onstra tes pas t perse cution is entitled to a reb uttable presu mp tion of a w ellfou nded fear o f futu re pers ecutio n. 8 C .F.R. § 208 .13(b )(1). Th at pres um ption is rebutted and a grant of a sylum generally will be den ied wh en the go vernm ent proves there has been a “fundament al change i n circumst ances” i n the appl icant ’s country such that the app lican t no lon ger has a w ell-f oun ded fea r ofper sec utio n th ere. Id . Even in t he event of rebu ttal, how ever, th e Bo ard m ay still awa rd a h um anitarian gran t of asylum in its discr etion i f the appl icant demonstrates eit

her “compell ing reas ons for bei ng unwilli ng or unable t o return to the c ountryaris ing out of t he severi ty of the past

persecution” or “a reasonabl e possibi lit

y that he or s he may suffe r other seri ous harm upon removal to that country .” Id . at § 20 8.13( b)(1)(iii); see In re Chen , 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989) (“However, the re may be cases where t he favorabl e exerci se of dis creti on is warranted for hum anitarian reasons even if there is littl e likelihood of future perse cution.”). 15 The Board found that

even if Petiti oners had es tabli shed past persecution, any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution had been rebutted because of fundamental changes in Kosovo. Petitioners do not chal lenge this fi nding of fact and we hold it to be support ed by s ubstantial e vidence. The Board took admini strative not ice of the Country Report

on Human Rights Practi ces in Kosovo publ ished bythe Department of St ate, which notes t hat pers ecuti on by Ser

bs in Kosovo has cea sed, as the Un ited N ations is now in con trol. Th is repo rt, and th e fac t that Pe titioners h ave f amily remaining in Koso vo w ithout incident, provid e substantial evide nce to up hold the B oard’s finding t hat the presumpti on of a well- founded fear has been rebutted. Finding no well -founded fear of persecution, t

he Board decli ned to award a humanitarian grant

of asy lum as a matter of dis creti on. It is this exercise of di scretion that Pet iti oners chal lenge. The Board held that while t he one-ti me beating of J ashanica and th e mu rder o f Sylejm ani’s f ather m ay have cons tituted p ersecu tion, tho se incid ents were not compell ing enough to merit as yl um in the abse nce of a well- founded fear of per sec utio n. See 8 C.F.R. § 208. 13(b)(1) (ii i)( A). It held, moreover, that Pet iti oners fai led to sho w a reaso nable poss ibility that they w ould suff er othe r seriou s harm if return ed to Ko sov o. See 8 C.F .R. § 2 08.13 (b)(1)(iii)(B ). For th ese rea sons , the B oard declin ed to award Petitioners hum anitarian asylum. Reg ardless of w hether w e agree w ith the Board ’s exerci se of it s discretion, given exi sti ng case la w concerning the humanitarian grant of asylum , we can not say the Bo ard ’s de cisio n w as a n ab use of its disc retio n. See In re6

Chen , 20 I. & N. Dec. at 16 (gra nting as yl um for humanitarian rea sons where appl icant had b een b eaten , detaine d, and force d into h ard lab or fro m the age o f eigh t, leaving him with perm anent ph ysical and emotion al wou nds).

IV. We are not uns ympathetic to Petitioners’ plight. N evertheless, the B oard did not abu se its disc retio n by d enyin g th eir re que st fo r a h um anita rian gra nt o f as ylum . We wi llde ny th e p etit

io n f orre vi ew.