FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 91 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -8 77 -5 50 VALBONA AGA LLIU, ILIR AGALLIU, JULIA AGALLIU, MATTHIAS AGALLIU, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on ers , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Valb on a Aga ll iu , herhu sb an d, Il ir Ag al li u, an d the ir c hi ldren , nat iv es an dci ti zen s o f Alb an ia , pet it io n t hi s C ou rt t o re vi ew th e d eci si on of t he Bo ardof

Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s tha t d en ie d Ag al li u’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g of rem ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act an d fo r rel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um anor Deg rad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t. 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 (a), 1 23 1( b) (3 ). The B oa rd affi rm edth e fi nd in gs of t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e th atAgal li u fa il edto pro ve th atsh e su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti onor t ha t s he wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d i f sh e returne d t o Alb an iabe cau se of afun da m en ta l ch an ge inco un try con di ti on s. We den y th e pe ti ti on . W e rev ie w th e d eci si on of t he Bo ardforsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Kaze mzad eh v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 77 F.3d13 41 , 13 50 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Becau se “ [o ]ur
rev ie w forsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l,” we “ ‘m

us t af firm th e de ci si on of t he Bo ardif i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .’ ” Id . at 1 35 1 (quo ti ng Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 )). Eve n i f th e rec or d s up po rts a fin di ng co nt rary to t ha t re ach edby the Bo ard , to rev ers e it s d eci si on “ ‘w e m us t fin d t ha t the reco rdno t o nl y supp orts rev ers al , bu t co m pe ls it .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Men do za v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 3 27 F.3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 thCir . 20 03 )). Aga ll iuch al le ng es th e fi nd in g t ha t s he was n otpe rs ecu te d b as edon he r 2po li ti cal op in io n, b utwe ne edno t ad dr es s tha t i ss ue be cau se , eve n i f we as su m e

th atsh e su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g o f th e Bo ardth atth ere h as be ena fund am en ta l ch an ge inco un try con di ti on s. Ag al li u al le ge d t ha t, b etween20 02 an d 2 00 4, s he was p ers ecu te d b y m em be rs of t he So ci al is t Party becaus e sh e supp orte d t he Rep ub li can Part y , bu t the reco rd
es tabl is he s t ha t the st ren gt h o f th e So ci al is t Pa rty dimini sh edaft er the na ti on al el ect io ns in20 05 . The 2 00 6 C ou nt ry Pro fil e st at es th at , as ares ul t o f th e el ect io ns in 20 05 , th e “ Dem oc rat ic Part y an d i ts all ie s,” i nc lu di ng th e Rep ub li can Part y , co nt ro ll eda m ajor it y

of P arl iam en t an d h adele ct edth e le ad er o f th e Dem oc rat ic Part y , Sal i Be ris ha , as p rime min is te r. Agal li u e xp res se s fe ar o f So ci al is ts who ha ve ret ai ne d the ir p os it io ns un de r th e n ew go ve rn m en t, b utth e Pro fil e st at es th at

“ ne it he r th e Gov ern m en t n or th e m ajorpo li ti cal pa rti es en ga ge inpo li ci es of abu se orco erci onag ai ns t the ir p ol it ic al op po ne nt s” an d, “ [w]hil e se rio us po li ti cal rep res si onex is te d i n t he pa st , th ere a re n o i nd ic at io ns of s y st em ic po li ti cal pe rs ecu ti on inAlb an iaat the pre se ntti m e.” The subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o f a ch arg e in co un try con di ti on s al so m ean s t ha t the reco rddo es no t co m pe l a f in di ng th at Aga ll iuha s an ob

jecti ve ly reaso nabl e fea r of futur e p ers ecu ti on or t ha t s he is
en ti tl edto hu m an it ari anasylu m . Becau se Agal li u fa il edto est ab li sh th atsh e was en ti tl edto asylu m , sh e al so can no t s at is fy th e h ig he r st an da rd s ap pl ie d t o 3ap pl ic at io ns forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al an d re li ef u nd er the Co nv en ti on . See

Sep ul ve dav. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 26 , 12 32 –3 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ; M eh m et i v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 72 F.3d11 96 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e DENYth e Aga ll iu s’ pet it io n fo r rev ie w.

4