[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-15257

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A098-706-661

SELADIN KASA,

XHEMILE KASA,

 Petitioners,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(May 13, 2013)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-15257 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Seladin Kasa petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s 

(BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Kasa’s application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT). His wife, Xhemile Kasa joins in his petition as a derivative 

beneficiary of his asylum application. The Kasas’ primary argument on appeal is 

that substantial evidence does not support the determination by both the IJ and the 

BIA that, due to a fundamental change in circumstances in Albania, Kasa no longer 

has a well-founded fear of persecution.1

 

“We review only the BIA’s decision, except where it expressly adopts the 

IJ’s decision.” Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2009). 

We review de novo the BIA’s legal determinations. Id. We review its factual 

determinations “under the highly deferential substantial-evidence test and ‘must 

affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and 

probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id. We can reverse 

 1 The Kasas make two other arguments on appeal. First, they argue that the IJ erred in 

determining that Kasa could relocate within Albania to avoid future persecution. However, 

because the BIA expressly did not adopt or affirm the IJ’s conclusion on this point, it is not a part 

of the order currently under review and we will not address the Kasas’ argument. See Lopez v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). Second, the Kasas argue that even if the 

IJ and BIA were correct that there was no well-founded fear of persecution, they failed to 

consider whether humanitarian relief, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii), was warranted. 

But, “without excuse or exception,” Kasa never requested that relief from the IJ and did not raise 

this issue on appeal to the BIA. It is therefore beyond the scope of our review. See AmayaArtunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 2006) (determining that we 

do not have jurisdiction to consider a claim not raised before the BIA). Neither have the Kasas

raised any arguments on appeal regarding their CAT relief claim, so any such argument has been 

waived. See United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Case: 12-15257 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

“only when the record compels a reversal.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In 

addition, the substantial-evidence test does not allow us to reweigh the importance 

attributed to the evidence in the record. Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 

1175 (11th Cir. 2008). 

The Attorney General has the discretion to grant an alien asylum if the alien 

establishes that he is a refugee, as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(INA). 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (2006); Mehmeti, 572 F.3d at 1199. The definition 

of “refugee” includes, as relevant here, any person who is unable or unwilling to 

return to a country because “of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution 

on account of . . . membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). Similarly, when seeking a withholding of 

removal, an alien bears the burden of showing that his “life or freedom would be 

threatened in that country because of [his] . . . membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); Imelda v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 724, 728 (11th Cir. 2010). 

“An applicant who has demonstrated past persecution is presumed to have a 

well-founded fear of future persecution.” Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 

1257 (11th Cir. 2007). The government can rebut the presumption by showing that 

“[t]here has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no 

longer has a well-founded fear of persecution” or the “applicant could avoid future 

Case: 12-15257 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality.” 

8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A)–(B) (2009). To sufficiently establish a well-founded 

fear of future persecution for purposes of an asylum application, the applicant 

“need only show that there is a reasonable possibility of suffering such 

persecution,” Mejia, 498 F.3d at 1256 (quotation marks and alteration omitted), 

but, for purposes of an application for withholding of removal, the applicant must 

show “that he more-likely-than-not would be persecuted or tortured,” Mendoza v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Although the IJ determined that Kasa established past persecution and thus 

presumably had a well-founded fear of future persecution, both the IJ and the BIA 

determined that “there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in 

Albania” so that the government sufficiently rebutted that presumption. The 

record does not compel a reversal. Kasa’s alleged fear of future prosecution is 

based on his affiliation with the Democratic Party and opposition to the Socialist 

Party. “[F]ocus[ing] on the specific harm suffered,” and the “unique facts of 

[Kasa’s] case,” the “particular information” in the U.S. Department of State’s 2009 

Human Rights Report: Albania, and Albania: Profile of Asylum Claims and 

Country Conditions, supported the BIA’s findings. See Imelda, 611 F.3d at 729; 

see also Mehmeti, 572 F.3d at 1199–1200 (finding that despite the fact that the IJ 

had relied solely on reports prepared by the State Department, substantial evidence 

Case: 12-15257 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

supported the determination that country conditions in Albania had changed). As 

highlighted by the IJ and BIA, those documents explain that Kasa’s Democratic 

Party has taken control of Albania’s Parliament, there have been no reports of 

political detainees or disappearances, political parties have operated without 

restriction, “there have been no outbreaks of political violence since 1998, and the 

available evidence suggests that neither the Government nor the major political 

parties engage in policies of abuse or coercion against their political opponents.” 

See Imelda, 611 F.3d at 729–30 (explaining that courts have found substantial 

evidence supported a fundamental change where there was evidence of “a change 

in the government that persecuted the petitioner,” and “where the evidence 

demonstrates a substantial decline in violence against persecuted groups”).

Because the record does not compel a reversal, the judgment of the BIA is

affirmed and Kasa’s petition for review is

DENIED.

Case: 12-15257 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 Page: 5 of 5