2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-10-2008 

# T r a jk ovska v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2068

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T r a jko vsk a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 380. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/380NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 2068

___________ DANI CA T RA J KOVS KA, Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L US A, R es pondent

___________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 97- 434- 483) Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember 9, 2008 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F U E N T E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober10, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________2

N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. B eca us e ouropi ni on i s w hol l yw i t houtpr ece dent i al val ue, and bec aus e the part i es and the D i s t r i ctC our tar e fa m i l i arw i t h i t s oper at i ve fa ct s , w e off eronl yan abbr evi at ed r eci t at i on t o expl ai n w hyw e w i l l di s m i s s t he as y l um cl ai m and denyt he w i t hhol di ng of r e mo v a l c l a i ms o f

t h e P e t i t i o n f

o rRe v i e w. T r aj kovs ka, a ci t i zen of M ace doni a, s eeks r evi ew of a BIA deci s i on deny i ng her r eques tforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . She ent er ed the countr yi n M ay2003 on a s tudent vi s a, butneverenr ol l ed i n t he col l ege thatw as des i gnat ed forhervi s a. B eca us e s he fai l ed t o m eett he r equi r ement s of hervi s a, T r aj kovs ka r ece i ved a N ot i ce t o A ppeart hat char ged herw i t h r emovabi l i t y . T r aj kovs ka fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. She cl ai m ed that , as a ni ece of the form erM ace doni an pr es i dentw ho di ed i n a pl ane c r as h t hatw as rum or ed t o have been c aus ed bypol i t i cal opponent s , s he fa ced e xt r eme har m i f r etur ned t o hercountr yof o ri g in . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge conc l uded thatT r aj kovs ka w as i nel i gi bl e foras y l um beca us e s he fa i l ed t o demonst r at e thatheras y l um appl i cat i on w as fi l ed w i t hi n one y earof herl as tentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es , and fa i l ed t o s ubs t ant i at e a c hange i n ci r cumst ance s t hatw oul d t ol l t hi s l i m i t at i on. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m ed the Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e ’s d e n ia l o f h e r a p p lic a tio n a s u n tim e ly.W h ile a n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e is re q u ire d to c o n sid e r th e re c o rd a s a w h o le in 1. rul i ng upon an al i en’ s cl ai m forr el i ef, a j udge i s notr equi r ed t o di s cus s everypi ece of e v id e n c e a s lo n g a s th e d e c is io n is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See Yan L an W u v. A sh c ro ft , 3 9 3 F . 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 5 n . 1 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 T r aj kovs ka att empt s t o cons t rue herappea l as a l egal ar gum ent , s o as t o avoi d t he j ur i s di ct i onal bart hatpr ecl udes ourr evi ew of the A t t or neyG ener al ’ s deci s i ons on w hetheran as y l um pet i t i on i s t i m el yfi l ed, and w hetherchange d ci r cumst ance s excus e a f ili n g d e lay. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ); 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ); Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 3 -3 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). N o n e th e les s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e r a rg u m e n t is e x c lu s iv e ly b a s e d in th e m e ri ts o f th e B o a rd ’s d e c is io n . W i t h r egar d t o t he w i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, a n d u n d e r IN A 2 4 1 (b )(3 ), T ra jk o v sk a a ss e rts b o th th a t th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e f a iled to c o n sid e r a f

f id a v its a n d a lette r th a t sh e p ro f f e re d , an d th a t th e B IA e n g a g e d in i ndepende ntfac t - fi ndi ng. W e not e thatt he j udge l i s t ed the af fi davi t s as evi dence . I n any 1 event , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he conc l us i ons t hatT r aj kovs ka fai l ed t o s us t ai n herbur den of pr ovi ng t hats he w oul d be pl ace d i n j eopar dyof bei ng t or tur ed ( s ee 8 C . F. R . 208. 16( c) ( 2) ) , and fa i l ed t o pr ove thati ti s m or e l i kel yt han nott hat herl i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened byherr etur n t o M ace doni a bec aus e of he r pol i t i cal as s oci at i ons . M or eover , w e do notagr ee w i t h T r aj kovs ka thatt he B I A engage d i n i ndepende ntfac t - fi ndi ng.4

For t hes e r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s T r aj kovs ka’ s Pet i t i on forR evi ew as t o her as y l um cl ai m , and denyherPet i t i on forR evi ew as t o herw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and C A T c la im s .