## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3710 V EC I S LA YM ILAN O UIC , al so known as V EC I S LA VM ILAN O V IC, P etitio ner, v.
E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 98-322- 600

A RGUED A PRI L 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 6, 2010

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd W OO D, Circ uit Ju dg es . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Pe ti ti onera p p eal s the Boar d of I m m i gr ati on Ap peal ’ s ( BIA) deni alo fhi s r equest f or w ith h old in g of re m ov al. W e n o t e a t t h e o u ts et th at although the capti on o fthe case i dentifi es peti ti oneras V ecislay M il an ou ic, he m ad e it clear at the h earin g before the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge that hi s nam e i s a ctual l y s pel l ed2 N o. 08

- 3710 Ve ci sl avM i l an o vi c. W e wi l lr efert o M i l an o vi c bythe sp ellin g t h at h e h a s d ec lar ed to be th e c or re c t o n e in th is o pi ni o n. M ilan ov ic, an et h n ic S erb , w as b o rn in Y u go sla via an d cam e to thi s countr y as a non- i m m i gr ant vi si tor i n Fe b ru ar y 1 99 6. H e d id n otlea ve th e c ou n tr y w h en h is author i zati on e xpired in Jul y 1 996, and on S eptem ber24, 20 04 , th e D ep ar tm en t o f H om ela n d Sec u rit y se rv ed h im w i th a N oti c e to A pp earchar gi ng tha t he w as subj ect to re m ova lbec ause he had r em ai ned l onge r th an hi s v i sa a l l o we d

. Mi l a n o v i c s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p l i e d f o r a s y l u m, w i thhol ding ofr em ova lunder § 241( b) ( 3) of the I m m i gr ati on a nd N atio nal i ty A ct ( I N A ) , and prot ecti on under the Con ve nti on Agai nst Tor ture ( CA T). The I m m i gr ation Jud ge (IJ) d e n ied th at reli ef after an ev iden tiary hear i ng, but gr anted hi m vo l untarydepartur e under § 2 4 0 B o fthe I NA. 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 2 9 c . Mi l a no v i c the n a ppeal ed to the BIA, w hi ch affi rm ed the IJ i n an o rder dated Se ptem ber24, 20 08. H e no w appeal s t o thi s co urt. M i l anovi c’ s a syl um cl ai m w as base d upon acti ons tak en ag ains t hi m wh en h e li ve d i n the f o r m erYug o sl av i a, a nd on the thre at to hi s sons of conscr i pti on i n th e Se rbi an ar m y s ho ul d the y r etur n. M i l an o vi c te st i fi ed atthe hear i ng tha t he ser ved i n the m i l i tar y i n the for m erYugosla via b et w ee n 19 79 an d 19 80 . In 19 93 , he w as ag ain cal l ed up on t o ser ve i n the m i l i tar y, and w as sent to K o s o v o o n ma n e u v e r s f o r 1 5 d a y s . He fl e d t o wa r ds S erbi a, a nd was c au g htb y the mil i ta r y pol ice a nd detai ned fo r 45 days, duri ng wh i ch ti m e he w as m i str eat ed by th e m i l i tar y pol i ce. A fterthe 45 days passed, he r etur ned hom e.N o. 08

- 3710 3 H e su bs eque nt l y b ec ame inv o l ve d i n su p p o r tingthe Se rbi an Renewal Party a gainst the go ver ni ng S ocia l i st P a r t y w h i c h w a s l e d b y S l o b o d a n Mi l o s e v i c . In S e p t e mbe r 1 99 5, he was a t a r es ta ur ant s p ea k i ngt o o th er s ab o ut op p osing th e govern m en t, w he n M ilo sevic su p p orters

— l ed by a l o ca l o ffi ci al who was a m embe r ofthe So ci al i st Party, Ratk o Zecevi c, and se ver alpol i cem en

— seve rely beathi m . H e s uffer ed ser i ous inj uri es as a res u lt o fthatbea ti ng, wh i ch r equi re d hospi tal i zati on and r esul ted i n the re m ova l of one of his t es ticl es. Tho se i nc i den ts f o rm the b as i s o fhi s cl ai m f o r a sy l um an d w ith h old in g of re m ov al. The IJ de ni ed th e as y l um c l ai m a s unt i m ely, r ej ec ting M i lan ov i c’ s co ntenti on that the pote nti alco nscri pti on o f hi s so n c o ns ti tu te d a c ha ng ed ci r cumst an ce j us ti fy i ng th e d elay. In so h olding, the IJnoted that his son’s potenti alco nscri pti on was di stin ct fro m the pol i ti cal ac tiv itie s t h at form ed th e g en es is of h is c laim , th at it was n ot a ha r m t o M i l an o vi c hi m se l f, a nd tha t i n a ny c a s e i twa s n o tt i mel y r a i s e d. The IJ pro ceeded to a d d ress M i l anovi c’ s cl ai m f or wi thho l di ngo fr emov al

. A n a l i eni s en ti tl ed to wi th

hol ding of re m ova l i f he can dem onst ra te a cl ear p robabi l i ty that hi s l i fe o r fre edom would be thre ate ned ba se d o n h i s r ac e, r el i g i o n, na ti o na l i ty, mem bership i n a pa r t i c u l a r s o c i a lg r o u p , o r p o l i t i c a lo p i n i o n . 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 23 1(b )(3) (A ); Ishiti a q v. Ho lder, 57 8 F. 3d 712, 71 7 ( 7th C ir. 2009); P a tel v. Ho lder, 581 F.3d 631 , 634 (7th Cir. 2009). Once an al i en es tabl i shes that h e w as subj ect to past perse cuti on, thattr i gge rs a re buttab le presum pti on o f4 N o. 08

- 3710 fu tu re p e rs ec u tio n . 8 C .F.R . § 12 08 .16 (b )(1) ; Is hi t i aq , 57 8 F .3 d at71 7; P a tel , 5 8 1 F
. 3 d a t 6 3 4
. Th e g o v e r nme ntm ay r eb uttha t pr es um pti o n b y de m o ns tr at i ng

—bya pr epo nderance o f the evi dence

— ei thera fund am entalchange i n c i r cumst ance s su chtha t th e appl i ca nt ’ s fea r i s no longer re aso nabl e, o r that the a pp l i cant c oul d a vo id futur e per se cut i o n b y r el o ca tingt o anot he r pa r t o fthe co unt r y a nd tha t i t woul d b e reason abl e to e xpe ctthe appli cant t o do so

. 8 C.F
. R. § 1208
. 16(b)(1)

. The bur den of p ro of t o re b u t t h at p re su m p tio n is on th e g ov er n m en t. Id. T he IJ foun d that the incid en t involving the m il itary pol i ce was insuffi c i ent t o dem onst ra te past per secuti on an d M ilan ov ic d oe s n otco n te st th at o n a p p ea l. T h e IJ f o und c r edibl e M i l an o vi c’ s te stim ony a s to the b ea ting atthe r es ta ur an t, ho wev er, a nd he l d tha t th e i nc i d en t w as suffi ci ent t o const i tute past persec uti on. A ccor dingl y, M i l anovi c was enti tl ed to a r ebuttabl e pr esum pti on o f future perse cuti on. The IJhel d, how eve r, thatthe gov ernm ent dem o ns tr at ed a ch an g e i n c o unt r y c o ndi ti o ns that re b u tte d that fearo ffuture perse cuti on. S peci fi cal l y, th e IJ no t e d t h at Slobod an M il osevic h ad been overthro w n, and had died wh i l e o n trial at the H ague f or w ar cr im es . M ilos e v i c ’s S oc ialis t P ar ty w as n o lon ge r in pow eri n Se rbi a, and M i l anovi c’ s par ty, the Se rbi an Re ne wa lP a r t y, h a d b e e n e l e c t e d t o s o me s e a t s i n par l i am en t. Accor di ng l y, the g o ve r nm en t ha d r eb ut te d the p resum pti on o ffuture perse cuti on. M i l anovi c di d not offerev i de n c e t o est abl i sh thatthe thre at persi ste d des pi te tha t ch an g e i n po wer, a nd the IJhe l d tha t he h ad failed to m ee t t h e c rit er ia for w ith h old in g of re m ov al.N o. 08

- 3710 5 A t the outs et, w e note that the tran script io n o f th e IJ’ s o r alde ci si o n a pp ears to be i nc o m pl et e, a s r efl ec te d i n the disc onnect betwe en t he fi rs t a nd se cond pages

. To i ts c re d it, th e g ov er n m en t p oin te d ou t t h at d isc re p an c y in its r esp onsi ve bri efto thi s co urt. M i l anovi c does not com pla i n thatthe re cor d i s incom ple te, o r that any s ubstan tive asp ect of the IJ ’s dec isi on is m issi ng . M oreover, our i nd ependent re vi ew o f t h e recor d as a wh ol e m ake s cl ea r th at al lpor ti ons ofthe or aldeci si on r el evantto the IJ ’ s dete rm i nati on a re tr anscr ibed, a n d w e ca n re vi e w the de c i s i o n. We no t e , h o we v e r, tha tthi s i s n ot the fi rs t ti m e in thi s p astyearthatwe have b een pr ese nted w ith an inc om p let e re c or d

. See P a tel v. Ho lder, 563 F
. 3d 565, 567 ( 7th Ci r. 2009 ) ( noti ng that one page of the IJ ’ s deci si on w as m iss in g fr om th e a d m in ist ra tiv e re c or d .) Th is is un acc ep table an d w e trus t tha t greater car e w il l be ex erci sed in the future to ensure thatr eco rds pr ese nted to thi s co urt ar e a ccurat e a nd co m ple te. W e t u rn to t h e co n te n tio n rais ed by M ilan ov ic in th is appe al

. He a r g ue s th atthe IJ e rre d i n de te r m i ni ng that t h e gov er nm ent had r ebutte d his sho w i ng o fpast perse cuti on bydem onst ra ti ng tha t a tr ansferi n pow er i n S e rb i a c o ns t i t ut e d a c ha ng e i n c o un t r y c o nd i t i o ns. M ilan ov ic a ss er ts th at it is in su ffici e n t fo r th e IJ to re ly m er el y o n the countr y r epor t t o re but a fin d i ng o fpast perse cut ion , a nd al so appears to ar gue that hi s cl ai m o f per se cut i o n was b as ed o n a loc alo ffi ci al ’ s i nde pen den t acti ons and ther ef or e the dem i se ofM i l ose vi c does not address the b as i s o fthe pe r se cut i o n c l ai m . In a ffi r m i ng th e IJ, the BI A re l ied on the fi ndi ng s o fthe IJ b ut add ed so m e a nal ysi s o fi ts own . In such a ci rcu m st an c e,6 N o. 08

- 3710

w e re vie w th e IJ’s d ec isio n as su p p lem en te d by th e a d d it i on al re as on in g of t h e B IA
. M em a v. G o nz a les , 4 74 F
. 3d 41 2, 41 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); P a vly kv. G o nz a les , 46 9 F
. 3d 1082 , 1087( 7th Cir. 2006). A s w e note d, M i l anovi c appears to ar gue o n appeal that his claim of p ersecu tio n w as bas ed on th e actions of a p u re ly loc al off icia l an d th u s t h e o u st er o f M ilos ev ic co ul d no t co ns titut e a ch an g e i n c o unt r y c o ndi ti o ns su ffi ci en t to r eb utthe pr es um pti o n o ffutur e per se cut i o n. I t i s quest i onabl e a s t o w hetherthi s a rgum ent i s e ven pr es er ve d, b ec au se i t i s dev el o ped to s o m e ex te nti n the re ci tat i on o ff act s, but noti n the ar gum ent s ecti on o f th e b rie f. SeeLong v. Teachers’Reti rem entSyst em of Ill inois , 58 5 F
. 3d 34 4, 3 49 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( “T o pr es en t ana r g um ent o n appea l, a par ty m ust deve l op i ts posi ti on by p roviding citation to the relevan t po rt io n s of th e record an d su p p or tin g a u th or ity .”) If rais ed , th er e is th e a d d iti onalpro bl em thatthi s ar gum ent w as never prese nted to th e IJ o r th e BI A. Al th o ug h Mil an o vi c ch al l en g ed th e fi nd i ng tha t the co untry re portr ebutte d his pre sum pti on o ffuture pe r se cut i o n, he ne ve r c ha l l en g ed i t o n the gr ound that the acti ons ofthe offi ci al s were not ti ed to the rul i ng re gi m e. I n f act, bef or e the IJ, the perse cuti on w as speci fi cal l y c hara cter i zed as having ta ken pl ace at th e han d s of M il osevic su p p orters base d on M ila nov ic’s su p p or t fo r th e o p p os itio n p ar ty . In h is St at em en t in Su p p or t o f I058 9, M ilan ov ic d i s c u s se d h is m em b er sh ip in th e m ov em en t o p p os in g M ilo s e v i c , an d st at ed th at h is o ppo si ti o n r es ulted in the b ea tinga t th e r es ta ur an t atthe hand s o fa w el l

- known M i l ose vi c support erR at ko Zece v i c , s t a t i ngtha th e wa s thr e a t e ne d wi th fur therN o. 08

- 3710 7 h ar m ifh e c on tin u ed h is a n ti-M ilos ev ic a c tiv itie s. T h at is co ns i st en t wi thhi s te st i m o ny a t th e he ar i ngb efo r e th e IJ
. In f act, duri ng clo si ng ar gum ents, hi s a tto rneyar gued th at h e h ad su ffer ed th e s ev er e b ea tin g b y M ilo s e v ic supp or ter Zecevi c and the pol i cem en because of h is m em b er sh ip in t h e o p p os itio n . Sim i l a r ly, th e B rie f in S uppo r t o fNot i ce o fAppea ls ta tes that“ su ppo r te r s an d pol i ce o fPre si dent Sl obo dan [s i c] M i l ose vi c, n am el y Rat ko Z e c e v i c wh o wa s a j u d g e a n d a n o ffi c i a li n h i s t o wn t o g e th e r wi th s e v e r a lp o l i c e me n, b e a th i m s e v e r e l y a nd i nfl i ct ed se r i o us i nj uri es o n h i m . ” The r efo r e, thr o ug ho ut th e admi ni st r at i ve pr o ce ss , M i l an o vi c ch ar ac te r i ze d the p er se c u tio n as h av in g b ee n u n d er ta ke n by M ilos ev ic s u p po r te r s b e c a u s e o fh i s o p p o s i t i o n t o Mi l o s e v i c . He neveras ser ted thatthe perse cuti on was perpet ra te d by l oca lo ffi ci al s a cti ng i nd ependentl y s uc h t h at the o uster o fMi l o s e v i c a nd h i s p a r t y wo ul d l o s e r e l e v a nc e . Ins t e a d, the on ly ar gum ent r ai sed to the BIA w as the c onte nti on th a tth e IJ e r r e d i n r e l y i n go n th e c o u n t r y r e p o r twi tho ut g i ving hi m a n o ppo r tu ni tyt o r eb uti t, thus “ ta k i ngthe pla ce o fthe Tri alA tto rn ey f orthe Dep ar tm ent o fH om elan d Sec u rit y.” W e h av e m ad e c lea r th at an alien m u s t ex h au st all ad m in ist ra tiv e re m e d ies be for e s ee kin g re vie w in t h is co ur t, a nd tha t th e d uty t o e xha us t i nc l ude s th e obl i gat i on t o prese nt to the BIA each a rgum ent a gainst th e re m ov al or d er . Ishiti a q v. Ho lder, 57 8 F
. 3d 71 2, 717- 18 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , cit i ng8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( d) ( 1 ) a nd Ghaf f arv. M uk a sey, 5 51 F
. 3d 6 51, 655 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. In Is hi t i aq , we hel d that I shi ti aq had w ai ved h i s cl ai m thatthe IJ had m ist ak en ly eq u at ed p as t p er se c u tio n w ith to rt u re . Is hi t i aq ,8 N o. 08

- 3710 57 8 F .3d at71 8. W e h eld th at alt h ou gh Ish i t iaqh ad ch allen ge d the fi nd i ng o fpast perse cuti on, he ha d based that ch al l en g e o nl y on th e ar g um en t th athi s ca se was di st i ngui shabl e fro m the tw o case s reli ed upon by the IJ
. That ch al l en g e di d no t pr es er ve a l lpo ss ibl e ch al l en ges to the past persec uti on dete rm i nati on, however, but ra ther ex h au st ed on ly th e sp ec ific a rg u m en ts ac tu ally rais ed

. Id. Si m i l ar l y, i n thi s case, M i l anovi c rai sed o nl y a chal l enge to the p r o c e du r e s u s e d in r e l y i ngo n the c o un t r y r e po r t, an d to the role e xe rcised by the IJ in usin g tha t rep ort to r e b ut hi s pr e s umpt i o n. M i l a no v i c di d no t a s s e r tthat th e c ou n tr y re p or t w as ins u fficie n t t o r eb u t h is c laim because the acti ons ofthe l oca lo ffi ci al s were not ti ed to M i l o s e v i c o r the p a r t y . Ac c o r di ng l y, thi s i s s ue i s wa i v e d. Even i fi t were consi de re d , h owever, the tes ti m ony at th e he ar i nga nd the s ta nda r d o fr ev i ew wou l d doo m the cl ai m . W e r evi ew f actualfi nd i ngs under the s ubstanti al evi dence te st, and w i l lu p h ol d them i fsupporte d by evi dence a r eas onabl e m i nd would fi nd adequate to su p p o r t th e co nc l us i o n. Terezo v v . Go nz a les , 4 8 0 F
. 3 d 5 58, 563 (7th Cir. 2007). T he IJ d eterm ined that the cou nt ry re portco nsti tuted a change i n condi tio ns suffi ci ent t o re but the pre sum pti on o ffuture perse cuti on. W e hav e r epe at edly uphe l d t he use o fc o unt r y r epo r ts t o de m o nstr ate such a change i n condi ti ons i fthe re portaddress es th e s p eci fi c ba si s f o r the a l i en ’ s fea r o fpe r se cut i o n; wher e th ati ndi vi dual ized a ss es smenti s no t m ade , o r the re portf ai l s t o add re ss the b asi s fo r the fearo fper secuti on ati ss ue i n th e c a s e , we h a v e r ej e c t e d s u c h a u s e o fthe c ou n tr y re p or ts
. See A yele v . H o l d er, 56 4 F
. 3d 862, 87 1 ( 7thN o. 08

- 3710 9 Cir
. 20 09 ); B ru caj v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 602 , 607 (7th C ir. 20 04 ); B er is haj v. A shcroft, 3 78 F
. 3d 31 4, 3 27( 3d Ci r . 2 00 4). S e ea l s o Pe l i n ko vi cv . As hc roft, 366 F. 3d 532, 54 0- 41 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( r ely i ngi n pa r t o n the c ha nge i n c o ndi ti o ns f o l low in g t h e re m ov al of M ilos ev ic a s a ba sis to u p h old B IA d ec isio n .) The que st i o n, th en, i s whethe r th e r ec o r d su p p orts the IJ’s d et er m in at i o n th at th e c h an ge in g ov er n m en t in Se rbi a was suffi ci entl y t i ed to M i l anovic ’ s fearo fper sec u tio n as to reb u t t h e p re su m p tio n . H er e, th er e is adequate e vi dence to support the IJ ’ s dete rm i nati on that th e re m ov al of M ilos ev ic c on st i tu te d a c h an ge in countr y c ondit i ons suffi ci ent t o re but the pre sum pti on offuture perse cuti on. A t the hear i ng, the perse cuti on su ffer ed by M ilan ov ic w as tie d to h is a c tio n s in op p os ition to M il osevic an d the Sociali st Pa rt y , and the p erpe t r a t o r s we r e c o ns i s t e nt l y i de nt i fi e d a s Mi l o s e v i c s up po r t e rs . A c c o r di ng l y, the IJ c o ul d r e a s o nab l yc o nc l ud e that w i th the r em ov al ofM i l ose vi c and hi s par ty fro m p ow er, M il an ovic w ou ld n o l o ng er face the fear of futu re perse cuti on f or h is a cti ons i n w or ki ng to w ar d that ou st er . Th at d oe s n otm ea n th at t h e c ou n tr y re p or t is dispos i ti ve

— i t r ebutte d the pre sum pti on but did not or dain the o utcom e. M i l an ovicco uld s ti l lhave pro ven enti tl em ent t o such w i thhol ding by dem onst ra ti ng tha t the l oca lo ffi ci al s were stil l in p ow er, o r that ther e was continued per secuti on in the countr y a ga inst thos e w h o h ad op p os ed M ilos ev ic, b u t h e d id n otd o s o. A lthough M i l anovi c st ates that he w as not provi ded an opportunity t o provi de su c h ev i dence, he r ai ses that co nt en ti o n i n o ne se nt en ce an d ne ve r dev el o ps th e ar g u-10 N o. 08

- 3710

m ent, nordoes he i denti fy w h at evi dence he woul d have i ntro du ced, and ther ef or e he has not f ai rl y pr ese nted that iss u e in th is a p p ea l. Lo ng v. Te ac he rs ’ R e t i r e m e ntSys t e m of Illin o is, 58 5 F
. 3d 344, 34 9 ( 7th Cir. 20 09) ( “A party m ay w ai ve an ar gum ent b y di sputi ng a . . . r uling i n a foo tnot e or a one -s en ten ce asse rtion tha t lacks citation to record evi dence. ”) Fin ally , M ila n o v ic c on te n d s t h at th e B IA err ed in f ai l i ngt o c o ns i derhi s cl ai m f o r humani ta r i ana sy l um . The IJ rej ec te d h is claim for as ylu m b ec au se it w as n o t t im ely fi l ed, and M i l anovic h as not conte ste d that det er m i natio n . Th er efo re , h e ha s p re se n te d n o gr ou n d s fo r re ve rs al. The deci si on o fthe IJ and the BIA i s A FFI RMED .

1- 6- 10