Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure *

43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is

automatically substituted for former Attorney General

Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

08-5717-ag

Volaj v. Holder 

BIA

Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ

A098 906 310

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS

FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1

AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A

LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST

ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:

“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER

TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED

BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE

ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE

DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 11 day of December, two thousand nine. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 REENA RAGGI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 ______________________________________

12

13 ARTA VOLAJ,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 08-5717-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,*

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________
2

1

2 FOR PETITIONER: Linda L. Foster, Fresh Meadows, 

3 NY.

4

5 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

6 General; John S. Hogan, Senior

7 Litigation Counsel; Edward E.

8 Wiggers, Trial Attorney, Office of

9 Immigration Litigation, United

10 States Department of Justice,

11 Washington, DC.

12

13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

14 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

15 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

16 is DENIED.

17 Arta Volaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks

18 review of an October 29, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the

19 April 6, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne

20 E. Gordon-Uruakpa, which denied her application for asylum,

21 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

22 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Arta Volaj, No. A098 906 310

23 (B.I.A. Oct. 29, 2008), aff’g No. A098 906 310 (Immig. Ct.

24 N.Y. City April 6, 2006). We assume the parties’

25 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

26 of this case. 

27 When, as here, the IJ’s decision rests on multiple

28 alternate grounds and the BIA adopts and affirms that
3

1 decision without expressly addressing each of the grounds,

2 we review the entire IJ decision and need not confine our

3 review to the grounds expressly addressed by the BIA. Ming

4 Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2006). We

5 review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial

6 evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also

7 Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We

8 review de novo questions of law and the application of law

9 to undisputed fact. See, e.g., Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331

10 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003). 

11 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that,

12 because of changed country conditions in Albania, Volaj’s

13 fear of future persecution is not well-founded. See

14 Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006). 

15 Even if an applicant establishes that she endured past

16 persecution, the presumption of a well-founded fear that

17 arises upon such a showing may be rebutted if the IJ finds

18 that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances

19 such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of

20 persecution in her country of nationality on account of one

21 of the five statutory grounds. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). 

22 Here, the IJ reasonably found, based on Volaj’s
4

1 testimony, that even if Volaj suffered past persecution, her

2 fear of future persecution was not well-founded. Volaj’s

3 asylum claim was based on persecution she and other members

4 of the Democratic Party suffered at the hands of the

5 Socialist commune leader in their area. Yet, as the IJ

6 found, because that commune leader no longer held a position

7 of power, and the position was filled by a member of the

8 Democratic Party, Volaj’s fear of persecution was not

9 objectively reasonable. The IJ reasonably found that

10 because the police in her area work for the commune leader,

11 Volaj would have redress were police to mistreat her. Under

12 these circumstances, the IJ did not err in denying Volaj’s

13 asylum application. See Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 187; Jian

14 Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).

15 Although Volaj argues that more recent elections in

16 Albania have returned control of many local governments to

17 the Socialist Party, “there is no doubt that there has been

18 a fundamental change in the political structure and

19 government of Albania,” notwithstanding that “Democrats have

20 not been continuously in power,” and thus the IJ’s finding

21 of changed country conditions in Albania is adequate. 

22 Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 188. 

23 Because the issue of changed country conditions is
5

1 dispositive of Volaj’s asylum claim, we do not address

2 whether the persecution she allegedly suffered had a

3 sufficient nexus to a protected ground. 

4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

5 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the

6 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.

7

8 FOR THE COURT: 

9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

10

11

12 By:___________________________