11-1603-ag 

Bala v. Holder

BIA

A077 562 803

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

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

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL

RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING

A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE

FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”).

A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 2nd 4 day of October, two thousand thirteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 MEHMET KAREMAN BALA,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 11-1603-ag

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Justin Conlon, Esq., North Haven,

24 Connecticut.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

27 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant

28 Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior

29 Litigation Counsel, Office of

30 Immigration Litigation, United

31 States Department of Justice,

32 Washington, D.C.
1

2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

5 is DENIED.

6 Mehmet Kareman Bala, a native and citizen of the Albania,

7 seeks review of an April 1, 2011, decision of the BIA

8 affirming the March 9, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge

9 (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus, which denied his application for

10 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

11 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mehmet Kareman

12 Bala, No. A077 562 803 (B.I.A. Apr. 1, 2011), aff’g No. A077

13 562 803 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 9, 2009). We assume the

14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

15 history in this case.

16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

17 the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Ming Xia Chen

18 v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable

19 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.

20 § 1252(b)(4); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,

21 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

22 This petition arises from proceedings following the BIA’s

23 grant of reopening. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in

2
1 declining to consider Bala’s argument that he suffered past

2 persecution after the fall of communism, as those arguments

3 were rejected during his original proceedings and the BIA

4 granted reopening only to allow him to present claims that

5 “relate[d] to new developments since [his] merits hearing.” 

6 See Singh v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 135, 139 (2d Cir. 2006)

7 (“Motions to reopen are designed to allow consideration of

8 circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the applicant’s

9 previous hearing.”); Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267

10 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that BIA did not err in declining

11 to address petitioners’ already litigated claims in reopened

12 proceedings).

13 As to Bala’s claim that he had a well-founded fear of

14 persecution due to changes in conditions in Albania, the

15 agency reasonably concluded that Bala failed to establish an

16 objectively reasonable fear based on his activities as a

17 member of Albania’s Democratic Party. See Hoxhallari v.

18 Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 188 (2d Cir. 2006)(per curiam). The

19 agency reasonably relied on the Department of State’s 2008

20 Country Report, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471

21 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006), which indicated that the

22 Democratic Party regained control of the Parliament in 2005

23 and that political parties have been operating without

3
1 reprisal or restriction since that time. Additionally, Bala’s

2 expert witness acknowledged that there had been a downward

3 trend in political violence, and conceded that he was not

4 aware of any individuals deported to Albania who were being

5 targeted for retaliation. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421

6 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (denying petition

7 due to “absence of solid support” in record for fear of

8 persecution, such that petitioner’s fear was “speculative at

9 best”). 

10 Because Bala was unable to show the objective likelihood

11 of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was

12 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to

13 succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v.

14 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Gomez v. INS, 947

15 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991). 

16 Additionally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in

17 concluding that Bala did not demonstrate “compelling reasons

18 for being unwilling or unable to return to the country arising

19 out of the severity of the past persecution.” 8 C.F.R.

20 § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A); see Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141, 152

21 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16,

22 19 (B.I.A. 1989) (“[T]here may be cases where the favorable

4
1 exercise of discretion is warranted for humanitarian reasons

2 even if there is little likelihood of future persecution.”). 

3 Because both the agency and this Court had already addressed

4 the severity of Bala’s past harm, the only new issue before

5 the agency was whether Bala’s evidence of present mental

6 health problems merited a grant of asylum. The agency

7 reasonably concluded that Bala did not demonstrate that his

8 current psychological symptoms arose from severe past

9 persecution. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 120 n.9 (2d

10 Cir. 2010).

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

12 DENIED. 

13 FOR THE COURT: 

14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

15

16

5