The Honor able Samuel H. May s, J r., United States District Court for the Western District * of Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0053n.06 F iled: Janu ary 23, 2007 No. 05-4408 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT P JET ER BU SHA TI, P etitioner , v. AL BER TO G ON Z AL ES, A tt or ne y G e ne r al, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VI EW F RO M A F IN AL OR

DE R O F THE BOA RD OF IM M IGRA TION AP P EA LS
Be for e : KEITH , CLAY , Circuit Judges ; and MAYS, District Judge
. *
DA M ON J. KEITH , Ci rc u i t Judge
. Pe ti ti o n e r - A p p e ll a n t P je te r B ushati petitions the Court for revie w of a Boa

rd of I mmigration Appe als (“B I A”) decision aff irming, without opini o n , an immigra tio n ju d g e ’ s d e n ia l o f h is a p p li c a ti o n f

o r d e f e r r a l o f r e mo v a l u

n d e r th e U n it e d

N a ti o n ’s Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . For the re asons set for

th below, we DENY Bushati’s due proce ss claims and DI SM ISS his remaining claims for la ck of jurisdiction. I. Pje te r B us hati i s a

41 -y e a r- old

nativ e a nd c iti zen of Al ba nia . He le ft

Al ba nia fo r Y ug os lavia in 199 0 as a pol iti c a l re fu g e e . I n 199 1, B us hati en te re d the Un ite d Stat e s as a re fu g e e . In 1 99 2, his immigration status was adjusted to lawful pe rmane nt resident. On Septembe r 22, 1995, Bushati was convicted of

two criminal counts in the State of Michig an Circuit Court for the County of Mac omb:No. 05-4408

Bushati v. Gonzales Pag e 2 (1 ) b re a kin g a nd

e nte ri nga

bu ild ingwith i nte nt t o c omm it l a rc e ny a nd (2 ) c on sp ir a c y

to c omm it br e a k in g an d e n te r in g . H e w a s s e n te n c e d to a te r m o f 2 4 to 1 2 0 mo n th s o f in c a r c e r a tion on e ach count, to be ser

ved conc urre ntly
. R em o v al p ro ce ed i n gs we re co m m en ce d aga i n s tBu s h at i o n Fe b ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 0 0 , wi t h t h e filing of a notice to appea

r. Th e n otice cha

rg ed B ushati with being subject to remova l as an a lien
c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d

f e l o n y. O n N o v e m b e r

7 , 2 0 0 0 , B u s h a t i c o n c e d e d r e m o v a b i l i t y. There afte r, on April 27, 2001, he filed applications for withholding of re moval pursuant to sec tion 241(b)( 3) of the Immigration and Natura liz ation Act (“ I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A) , and withholding a n d d e f

e r r a l o f r e mo v a l u n d e r th e CA T , 8 C. F
. R. § § 1 2 0 8
. 1 6 , 1 2 0 8
. 1 7 ( a )
. I nthe
a pp lic a tio ns , h e a lle g e d th a t if he we re to r e tur

n t o Al ba

nia he wo uld

be de ta ine d, ma de to “disappe ar,” tortured, or

forc ed to admit he is a spy and then tortured beca use he and his fa

mily have alway s been a

nti-Communi st and the people in power in Alba nia ar e for

mer Communists. An ad m i n i s t ra t i v e h ea ri n g wa s h el d o n Bu s h at i ’s ap p l i ca t i o n s b ef o re an i m m i gra t i o n j u d ge on May 19, 2004. Bushati testified briefly and did not call any wi tnesses. At the he aring , when asked if he would be subjec t to torture i f he returne d to Albania, B ushati responde d that it was not safe for him in Albania a

nd that he would not fee l comfortable there . He f urther stated that he wa s not able to say

whether he mig ht be subj ect to torture because he had not been in Albania for more tha n te n y e a rs . Wh e n q

ue sti on e d a

bo ut w hat mi g ht h a

pp e n if he return ed tom or

ro w, B us hati responde d that he did not know. When asked if the only rea son he fe els that he would be perse cuted is beca use he left Albania ill eg ally , Bushati responde d “proba bly .” He testified that his father and five sibl i n gs co n t i n ue to re side in Albania a nd none of the m have e x perie nced pr oblems with theNo. 05-4408

Bushati v. Gonzales Pag e 3

To the extent that Bushati’s brie f could b e co n strued as suc h, he has e ffe ctively waived 1 appea l of those issues. See R a w e v. L iberty Mut. Fire I ns. Co. , 462 F.3d 521, 525 n.4 ( 6th Cir. 2006). g overnme nt. He stated that when he live d in Albania, he w as neve r deta ined, interrog ated, imprisoned, or per secute d by the authorities. He also testified t hat he has neve r bee n a member of a political par

ty or ac tive in politi cs in Albania or any wher e else
. I n an ora l decision following the hearing , the immigration judge f ound that Bushati did not qualify for withholding of re moval under the I NA or the CAT beca

use he ha d been c onvicted of a n ag g ravated fe lony
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)( B) (i i ); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)( 2). As to B ushati’s pe tit ion fo r d e fe rr a l of

re mov a l ma de purs ua

nt to the CA T, the imm ig ra tio n judg e fo un d tha t B us hati had fa iled to satisfy

his burden to demonst rate that it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon his return to Albania . Acc ording ly , the immigration judge denied B ushati’s applications. On Octo b er 7 , 2005, the B I A af firmed the immig ration judg e’s de termination without an opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e )(4)
. Bushati tim ely

filed a pe tition for reviewof the BI A’s dec ision with t his Court on November 4, 2005. Bushati does not appea r to appe al the B I A’s denia l of withh o l d i n g of re moval under the I NA or the CAT. Rather, B ushati only petitions the Court for revie w of the denial of his application 1 for de fer ral of r emoval under

the CAT. II. Where the B I A af

firms an immigr ation judge ’s dec ision without an opinion, we review the decision of the immig ration judg e dire ctly
. De nk o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 726 (6th Cir. 2003) . Our revie w of Bushati’s petit ion is limit ed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( C) and (D). Tran v. Gonzales , 447No. 05-4408

Bushati v. Gonzales Pag e 4 F.3d 937, 940 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Section 1252(a) (2)( C) “pre cludes courts from reviewing any ‘final order of re moval ag ainst an alien w ho is removable by rea son of having comm i t t ed a criminal offe nse cove red in sec tion . . . 1227(a)( 2)(A) (iii) [convicted of an a g g ravated fe lon y ]
. ’” Id
. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( C)) (alterations in the orig inal). Section 1252(a )(2) (D) supplies a n exception to this restric tion on judicial revie w, providing : “Nothing in subpa rag raph ( B) or (C), or in any other provisi o n o f t h is chapter . . . which limits or eliminates judicial review, sha ll be construed a s prec luding r eview of constitutional claims or questions of law r aised upon a petition for revie w filed with an a

ppropriate court of a

ppeals[.] ” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( D). I t is undisput ed that Bushati committ ed ag g ravated fe l onies cove red by sections 1252(a )(2) (C) and 1227(a) (2)( A)(iii). The ref ore, our revie w of his pe t i t i o n is circumscr ibed to only constitutional
c la ims or qu e sti on s o f l a w. Our r e vie w o f c on sti tut ion a l c la ims is de novo
. Elia v. Gonzales , 431 F.3d 268, 272 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Bushat i ra i s es t wo distinct challeng es to the B I A’s dec ision. First, he cla ims that the immigration judge’ s finding that he fa iled to meet his burden in est ablishing a CAT defe rra l of
remova l claim was not supported by substantial evidence
. The iss ue of whether substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’ s finding that Bushati did not establish that he would likely be
su bje c t to tor

tur e up on re mov a l to Al ba nia is cl e a rl y a fa c tua l det e rm inatio n. As su c h, the c la im f a lls outside the jurisdictional purview of this Court and must be dism issed. B us ha ti’s seco ndgroun d fo r app eal is th at t he BI A’s us e of t he s um mar y -affi rm ance- wi tho utopinion procedur es (so c alled “stre amlining pr ocedur es”) set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e )(4)No. 05-4408

Bushati v. Gonzales Pag e 5

Al tho ug h B us hati pr ov ide s, in a n a rgume nt su bh e a din g a nd the “ State me nt o f t he I ssu e s” 2 portion of his appellate brief, that an i ssue on appe al is whether the streamlining provisions violated his ri g hts to d

ue pr oc e ss or equal protection , he do e s no t a dv a nc e a ny e qu a l pr ote c tio n a

rgume nts
. As such, B ushati has forf eited his equa l protection cla im. Se e Ra we , 462 F.3d at 525 n.4 (citing United States v. Re ed , 167 F .3 d 984 , 993 (6 th Cir . 1 99 9) ; Buziashvili v. Inman , 106 F.3d 709, 719 (6th Cir. 1997)) (stating t h at a claim is deemed for feited a nd will not be considere d by the Court when a n appellant simply

identifies a claim as an issue for appeal without providi ng any argument addre ssing the me rits of the cla im). We note that Petitioner’s counsel, Te renc e G. Hoe rman, ha s u n s u cc essfull y asser ted the 3 identical due proce ss arguments, verbatim, to t his Court a multi tude of times. See Lumaj, 462 F.3d a t 57 6 n. 1 (“ Mr
. Ho e rm a n ha s us e d the same lang ua g e ra isi ng the du e pr oc e ss a rgume nt i n at le a st elev en other c ases that a

re pe nding be fore this court, . . . [even thoug h he] has been on notice that Denk o fore closes the due proce ss argument since at least May 27, 2005[,] ” when the Court issued an o p i n i o ni n o n e o f h i s ca s es ci t i n g Denk o and reiterating that the B I A’s strea mlining proc edure s do not violate a petitioner’ s due proc ess rig hts. Id. (interna l citations omit ted)). v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t t o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l d

u e p r o c e s s u n d e r

t h e F i f t h A m e n dm e n t
. W e n e e d n o tt a r r y. 2 This issue was expressly

decide d in Denk

o , 351 F.3d at 729-30. The pe titioner in Denk o , proff ere d the same due proce ss arg uments that Bushati prese nts in the i nstant appea l, and this Court, in turn, upheld the strea

mlining proc edure s as constitutional. Id. “This conclusion alig ns with that of ever y other c ircuit to consider the issue[,] . . . [and] [t ]hi s court has r eaf firmed the holdingin Denk o on
numerous occ asions[.] ” Lumaj v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 574, 576 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). As B us hati’ s d

ue pr oc e ss c la ims a re wh oll y ind ist inguis ha

ble fr om Denk

o , t h e cl aim s must be denied. 3 III . For t h e afor ementioned r easons, B ushati’s due proc ess claims ar e DENIED and the
re ma ind e r o f h is p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w i s DI SM ISSED for lac k of jurisdiction.