FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 92 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 79 -4 17 -0 97 ALI HASSAN JASEM, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ali Hass anJas em , a Sh i’a Mu sl im an d anati ve an d c it iz enof I raq , pet it io ns fo r rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) de ni al of h is sec on dm ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs on th e b as is of c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s

inIraq . On ap pe al , Jas em arg ue s tha t the BIA erre d i n c on cl ud in g tha t the re were in su ffi ci en t ch an ge d c ount ry co nd it io ns inIraqby ign or in g e vi de nc e o f in crea se d vi ol en ce al on g wi th a si m ul tane ou s d ecre as e in sec ur ity . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enanimm ig rat io n p et it io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. J iang v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 68 F.3d12 52 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Our re vi ew “ is li m it edto de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n a n a rb itrary or cap ric io us m an ne r.” Id . An al ie n m ay

fil e o ne m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs an d g en eral ly m us t fi le th e m ot io n wi th inni ne ty day s o f th e d at e o f th e BIA’s fi na l adm in is tra ti ve rem ov al ord er. 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (A), (C)( i); 8 C.F .R. § 10 03 .2(c )(2 ). Howev er, the se ti m e an d n um eri cal li m it at io ns do no t ap pl y wher e (1 ) th e m ot io n s eek s as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , or C AT reli ef; (2) th e m ot io n i s b as edon ch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns ; an d (3 ) th e ev id en ce o f ch an ge d co nd it io ns is m at eri al an d “ was no t av ai labl e an d wo ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov ered orpre se nt edat the pre vi ou s p ro ceed in g.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (ii ); s ee 8 C.F.R. § § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 3) (ii ) an d 1 00 3.2 3( b) (4 )(i ); Ji an g, 5 68 F.3d at12 56 . Prov in g th atev id en ce i s m at eri al is a “he av y bu rd en ” b ecau se anali ensee ki ng to reo pe n rem ov al pro ceed in gs on th e b as is of c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s m us t d em on st rat e 2“ th at , if the pro ceed in gs were o pe ne d, the ne w evi de nc e wou ldli ke ly chan ge th e

res ul t i n the cas e.” J iang , 56 8 F .3d at12 56 -5 7. To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , “ anap pl ic an t m us t es tabl is h tha t [h e] has a well -fo un de d fe ar tha t [h e] will be pe rs ecu te d i f rem ov edto [hi s] ho m e co un try onacco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” Li v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 48 8 F .3d13 71 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 01 (a)( 42 ), 11 58 (b )(1 ), an d 1 23 1( b) (3 ). To qua li fy forCAT rel ie f, anap pl ic an t m us t d em on st rat e th atitis

“ m or e li ke ly than n ot ” th athe wil l b e to rtu redup on hi s re tu rnto th e p ro po se d co un try of rem ov al . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c)(2 ). W e h av e st at edth atpri va te act s o f vi ol en ce, g en eral cri m in al act iv ity , andpu rel y pe rs on al retrib ut io n d o n otqu al ify as pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n ast atut or il y pro te ct edgro un d. Se e Ru iz v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); San ch ez v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 92 F.3d 43 4, 4 38 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Mo reo ve r, we ha ve he ldth atno nc riminal in fo rm an ts do no t co ns ti tu te a pa rti cu lar so ci al gro up un de r th e INA. Cas ti ll o- Aria s v . U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 46 F.3d11 90 , 11 97 -9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Nor d oe s as y lu m eli gi bi li ty ex te nd“ to an y on e who fear s the ge ne ral da ng er tha t i ne vi tabl y acco m pa ni es po li ti cal ferm en t an d fa ct io na l s tri fe.” Ma zari eg os v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 2 41 F.3d 13 20 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . 3Upo n re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we fin d th atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g J as em ’s sec on d m ot io n t o reo pe n. Fi rs t, b ecau se th e BIA ad equa te ly revi ewedJas em ’s m ot io n andth e ev id en ce o f ch an ge d c ou ntry co nd it io ns th athe fil edinsupp ort, the BIA d idno t actarb itrari ly or cap ric io us ly. See J iang , 56 8 F .3dat 1 25 8. Se co nd , Jas em ’s se co ndm ot io n t o re op enwas u nt im el y an d n um be r-b arre d, b ecau se itwas fi le d fo ury ears aft er the BIA’s fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al bu t d idno t d em on st rat e ch an ge d co un try con di ti on s i n Ir aqth atwere m at eri al an d c ou ldno t h av e b eendi sc ov ered atth e ti m e o f th e rem ov al pro ceed in gs . See i d. at12 56 . Rath er, wh il e Ja se m ’s ev id en ce s ho wedon go in g g en eral vi ol en ce s te m m in g fr om

th e g ov ern m en t’s tra ns it io n, h e d idno t d em on st rat e in crea se d v io le nc e sp eci fic al ly dire ct edat in di vi du al s s im il ar t o h im . See Ma zari eg os , 24 1 F .3dat 1 32 8 (“ th e INA do es no t ex te ndeli gi bi li ty for as y lu m to an y on e who fear s the ge ne ral dang er tha t in ev it ab ly accompan ie s p ol it ic al ferm en t an d fa ct io na l s tri fe.” (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) ). As s uc h, h e fai le d t o d em on strat e th atth e “ ne w evi de nc e wou ldli ke ly

1

To be sure , J asem testified that an alien smug g ler a sserted a persona l vendetta that 1 constitutes a direc t and targ eted thre at. Howe ver, pur ely persona l retribution and private ac ts of violence do not qua lify

as per secution base d on a statutorily protec ted ground, and, e ven as a noncriminal informa

nt for the United States, Jasem would not fall within a par ticular socia l group. See Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1258; Sanche z, 392 F.3d at 438. 4ch an ge th e res ul t i n h is cas e,” J iang , 56 8 F .3dat 1 25 7, an d c on se qu en tl y th e ag en cy di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n thi s d en y in g re li ef. PETI TI ON DENI ED .

5