[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-14515

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A216-453-114

GOGA DJADJU, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(November 19, 2020)

Before GRANT, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 1 of 10
2

Goga Djadju seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order, affirming the immigration judge’s denial of withholding of removal. Djadju

argues that the BIA erred in affirming the immigration judge’s finding that his fear 

of future persecution, if he were to return to Macedonia, based on his bisexuality 

was not objectively reasonable. Because we find that substantial evidence supported 

the BIA’s finding, we deny his petition for review.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Djadju, a native and citizen of Macedonia, lawfully entered the United States 

on or about November 16, 2016, on a temporary visa that expired on May 15, 2017. 

He remained in the United States beyond that expiration date, and on July 2018, the 

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) filed removal proceedings against 

Djadju and served him with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). The NTA charged 

removability on the ground that Djadju had remained in the United States beyond 

the time permitted on his visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). 

On July 23, 2018, Djadju, through counsel, appeared before the immigration 

judge, admitted the factual allegations in the NTA, and conceded the charge of 

removability. He then filed applications for asylum, for withholding of removal 

under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and protection under the 

Convention Against Terrorism (“CAT”). Djadju argued that because he was a 

bisexual male, he would more likely than not face persecution if required to return 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 2 of 10
3

to Macedonia. He further argued he was entitled to protection because the 

Macedonian government fails to protect the LGBTQ community and fails to 

prosecute perpetrators of violent crimes committed against this community. 

Along with his applications, Djadju also filed his sworn statement and other 

documentary support. In the sworn statement, as relevant to this appeal, he indicated 

that although same-sex relationships in Macedonia are not illegal, they remain 

extremely taboo and that the LGBTQ community is regularly abused, humiliated, 

and physically attacked. As an example, he recounted a time when he visited an 

LGBTQ bar in Macedonia in 2012 where “hooligans” attacked patrons, many of 

whom were injured, that resulted in little to no police investigation. As evidence of 

the high likelihood that he would face future persecution, Djadju explained that he 

hid his sexual orientation, but, after travelling to the United States, one of his former 

male partners exposed him. Following this outing, he claimed that his friends told 

him that he “would be in trouble” if he returned to Macedonia and that he received 

messages from former coworkers, neighbors, and friends threatening him, such as, 

“I’ll make sure you regret who you are,” and “I will break your nose.” He cited 

these threats as why he was afraid to return to Macedonia and for his decision to 

remain unlawfully in the United States after his visa expired.

Djadju also filed a 2017 Department of State report, which found that one of 

the most significant human rights issues in Macedonia included violence against 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 3 of 10
4

LGBTQ persons. According to the report and similar to Djadju’s statement, samesex relationships are legal in Macedonia, and its “constitution and law prohibit 

discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” But the LGBTQ 

community “remain[s] marginalized, and activists supporting [LGBTQ] rights 

reported incidents of societal prejudice, including hate speech, physical assaults and 

other violence, failure of police to arrest perpetrators of attacks, and a failure of the 

government to condemn or combat discrimination against the [LGBTQ]

community.” And the report further noted that there is a lack of will among the 

major political parties in Macedonia to address these issues.

Following a hearing, the immigration judge issued an oral decision denying 

Djadju’s applications. Djadju appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the BIA 

only as to its denial of his applications for asylum and for withholding of removal 

under the INA. On March 15, 2019, the BIA remanded the application back to the 

immigration judge for further analysis, finding that the immigration judge had failed 

to “adequately weigh[] the evidence of record.” On remand, following a second 

hearing, the immigration judge issued a written decision again denying Djadju’s 

applications for asylum and for withholding of removal. The immigration judge first 

held that Djadju was time-barred from seeking asylum as he had filed his application 

after being present in the United States for over a year. The immigration judge then 

turned to Djadju’s application for withholding of removal and stated that he found 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 4 of 10
5

Djadju’s statement and testimony credible, but that the reported harassment and 

verbal threats do not rise to the level of persecution. The immigration judge further 

held that although Djadju has a genuine, subjective fear of future persecution if he 

returned to Macedonia, he failed to meet his burden in demonstrating an objective, 

well-founded fear of future of persecution. As for the conditions in Macedonia, the 

immigration judge stated that although the people of Macedonia have historically 

been “intensely homophobic,” activists and experts have indicated that “the 

mentality of people is slowly changing” and that the Macedonian government has 

been more openly supportive of the LGBTQ community. As such, the immigration 

judge stated that “the record [was] devoid of evidence that North Macedonian 

government officials would acquiescence to any future abuse” and concluded that 

Djadju was not eligible for withholding of removal under the INA or CAT. 

Djadju again appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the BIA, which 

dismissed his appeal, affirming the immigration judge’s decision. The BIA echoed 

the immigration judge’s finding that Djadju “failed to establish that any harm he 

may have suffered, even in the aggregate, was of such severity as to rise to the level 

of persecution.” Djadju then filed the present appeal. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We only review the decision of the BIA, unless, as here, the BIA expressly 

affirms or adopts the immigration judge’s decision. See Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 5 of 10
6

735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). We review factual determinations, including 

credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence test, which requires 

affirmance if the decision is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative 

evidence on the record considered as a whole. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 

1247, 1254–55 (11th Cir. 2006). We view the record in the light most favorable to 

the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. 

Id. at 1255. The mere fact that the record may support a different conclusion is not 

sufficient; rather, the record must compel a contrary conclusion to warrant reversal. 

Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007).

III. ANALYSIS

Djadju only raises one issue on appeal—that the BIA and immigration judge

erred in finding that he did not have an objectively reasonable fear of future 

persecution based on his bisexuality if required to return to Macedonia. He makes 

no argument that he is entitled to asylum1 or to relief under the CAT, and “[w]hen 

an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.” Djonda v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1173–74 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sepulveda v. U.S.

1 Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to review whether an application for asylum was timely 

filed. See Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006) (“‘No court shall have 

jurisdiction to review any determination’ that an application was untimely or failed to establish 

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay.” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3))). 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 6 of 10
7

Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005)). We therefore address only 

his eligibility for withholding of removal under the INA. 

Djadju argues that the evidence on record, particularly his testimony and the 

reports concerning the current conditions in Macedonia, established a reasonably

objective fear of future persecution and that the immigration judge failed to give 

“reasoned consideration” to all this evidence when he denied his application. To 

qualify for withholding of removal, Djadju bears the burden to establish that his “life 

or freedom would be threatened in [his] country because of [his] race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(A). “This standard is more stringent than the ‘well-founded fear of 

future persecution’ required for asylum.” Tan, 446 F.3d at 1375 (citing Mazariegos 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1324 n.2 (11th Cir. 2001)). 

Djadju may satisfy this burden in either of two ways. Id. “First, [he] may 

establish past persecution in [his] country based on a protected ground.’” Id. 

Second, where past persecution is not shown, he can prove eligibility “if he can 

demonstrate a future threat to his life or freedom on a protected ground in his 

country.” Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 2004). To do so, 

he must prove that “it is more likely than not” that he would face discrimination 

based on that protected ground. Tan, 446 F.3d at 1375. Djadju is not claiming past 

persecution, so only the second method is relevant to our analysis. 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 7 of 10
8

Here, substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s determination 

that Djadju failed to establish an “objectively reasonable” fear of future persecution. 

Djadju argues that his fear is objectively reasonable because he has received actual 

threats on social media from his peers and the Macedonian government is unlikely 

to protect his rights as a bisexual person. But “[p]ersecution is an extreme concept” 

and requires more than mere harassment or intimidation. Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

448 F.3d 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231). And 

although the country of Macedonia has a history or marginalizing and discriminating 

against the LGBTQ community, the government there has recently taken large 

strides to combat such marginalization. The record shows that Macedonia has 

prohibited, through both its constitution and laws, discrimination based on sexual 

orientation. It has provided verbal and financial support to the LGBTQ community, 

including giving a grant for annual pride events, which have occurred in recent years 

without incident. The record reflects, and the immigration judge concluded, that the 

LGBTQ community may still face harassment and discrimination in Macedonia, but 

such harassment is not condoned by the government and does not rise to the level of 

persecution. The immigration judge, and the BIA in affirming him, did not err in 

denying Djadju’s application for withholding of removal under the INA. 

Finally, Djadju argues that the immigration judge failed to give “reasoned 

consideration” because he did not consider the specific threats Djadju received or 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 8 of 10
9

the evidence related to the Macedonian government’s inadequate protection of the 

LGBTQ community. But this argument lacks merit. The immigration judge

reviewed and considered all the evidence on record, specifically referencing the 

personal threats and the current conditions in Macedonia. Its decision sufficiently 

evidenced “that it [had] heard and thought and not merely reacted” to the issues 

presented. See Tan, 446 F.3d at 1374. And, as discussed above, the immigration 

judge reasonably concluded that the threats of harassment and discrimination from 

his peers did not amount to the level of persecution required and that the steps taken 

by the Macedonian government to protect the LGBTQ community in its country 

strongly indicates that it would not sponsor or condone such persecution committed 

by private actors. See Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 803 (11th Cir. 2016) 

(“Ultimately, the agency does not give reasoned consideration to a claim when it 

misstates the contents of the record, fails to adequately explain its rejection of logical 

conclusions, or provides justifications for its decision which are unreasonable and 

which do not respond to any arguments in the record.”). We therefore deny Djadju’s 

petition for review. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Because substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s reasoned 

determination that Djadju failed to demonstrate an objective fear of future 

persecution in Macedonia based on his bisexuality, we deny his petition. 

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 9 of 10
10

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 19-14515 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 10 of 10