0 9 -1 1 3 3 -a g

Muc a v . H o lder B IA We i s e l , IJ A047 279 580 A047 279 581 A047 279 582 A047 279 583 A047 279 584 

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

# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULI NGS BY SUMMARY ORDERDO NO T H AVE PR ECE DEN TIA L E FFE CT . C ITA TIO N TO A SUMMAR Y ORD ER FIL ED ON OR AFT ER J

ANUARY 1, 200 7, IS PERMIT TED AND IS GOV ERN ED BY F EDE RAL R ULE OF A PPE LLA TE P ROC EDU RE 32. 1 AND TH IS COU RT ’ S L OCA L R ULE 32. 1.1 . WHEN CI TIN G ASUMMARY ORD ER IN A D O C U M E N T FI LED WI TH THI S COU RT , A PAR TY MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE F EDE RAL A P P E N D I X O R AN E L E C T R O N I C D A TAB ASE ( WIT H T HE NOT ATI ON “ SUMMAR Y O RDE R ”). A PARTY CI TIN G ASUM M A R Y ORD ER MUS T S ERV E ACO PY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NO T REP RES ENT ED BY COU NSE L . 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 16 day of February, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11

______________________________________ 12 13 SANIJE MUCA, VULNET MUCA, ENGJELL MUCA, 14 RILIND MUCA, MILOT MUCA, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 09-1133-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 2 2

__________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Sokol Braha, New York, New York. 25 26 F O R RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General, Civil Division; Francis W.2 1 Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; 2 Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 U.S. Department of Justice, 5 Washington, D.C. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 9 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for 1 0 review is DENIED. 1 1 Petitioners, all citizens of Macedonia, seek review of a 1 2 February 24, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the June 4, 1 3 2007 decision of Immigration Judge Robert D. Weisel, denying 1 4 their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 1 5 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 16 Muca , Nos. A047 279 580/581/582/583/584 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 1 7 2009), aff’g Nos. A047 279 580/581/582/583/584 (Immig. Ct. 1 8 N.Y. City June 4, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity 1 9 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 2 0 case. 2 1 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 2 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 23 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2 4 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 2 5 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d3 1 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 The agency properly found that petitioners failed to 3 establish a well-founded fear of persecution, as required for a grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). 4 The IJ 5 provided a reasoned and detailed analysis of the record and 6 determined that, while the evidence indicated that ethnic 7 Albanians experience “discrimination and harassment” in 8 Macedonia, the record did not support a finding that they 9 would face persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of 10 Justice , 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that harm 1 1 must be sufficiently severe and rise above “mere 1 2 harassment”); see also Fatin v. INS , 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d 1 3 Cir. 1993) (“[P]ersecution does not encompass all treatment 1 4 that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.”). 1 5 With respect to petitioners’ 1 6 arguments regarding the potential harm faced by military 1 7 recruits and the disabled, we are not compelled to reach a 1 8 conclusion contrary to that of the agency. See Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) 1 9 . Ultimately, the 2 0 agency reasonably found that the record did not support a 2 1 finding that petitioners’ fear was objectively reasonable. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) 224 1 (holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it 2 lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely “speculative at best”). 3 4 Insofar as petitioners failed to meet their burden of 5 proof with respect to asylum, they necessarily failed to 6 meet the higher burden of proof required to prevail on their 7 claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 8 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, because 9 petitioners failed to challenge the denial of their CAT 1 0 claim either before the BIA or this Court, we deem any such 1 1 argument abandoned. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS , 508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007) 12 . 1 3 Finally, we find no error in the BIA’s refusal to enjoin 1 4 petitioners’ removal based on their allegation that the 1 5 government delayed placing them in removal proceedings. 1 6 Rather than showing that the government engaged in 1 7 “affirmative misconduct,” the record reveals that 1 8 petitioners played a role in any delay by pursuing visas for 1 9 which they were ineligible. See Ajdin v. BCIS , 437 F.3d 261, 266 (2d Cir. 2006) 2 0 ; see also Rojas-Reyes v. INS , 235 F.3d 115, 126 (2d Cir. 2000) 21 . To the extent petitioners’ 2 2 brief can be read to request that this Court enjoin their5 1 removal, we decline that request. 2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 7 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 8 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 9 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 1 0 FOR THE COURT: 1 1 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 12 13 14