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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 2 nd** **day of October, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **REENA RAGGI,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **MEHMET KAREMAN BALA,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-1603-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Justin Conlon, Esq., North Haven,** 23 **Connecticut.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant** 27 **Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior** 28 **Litigation Counsel, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 321 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Mehmet Kareman Bala, a native and citizen of the Albania, 6 seeks review of an April 1, 2011, decision of the BIA 7 affirming the March 9, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus, which denied his application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mehmet Kareman 11 Bala , No. A077 562 803 (B.I.A. Apr. 1, 2011),aff’gNo. A077 12 562 803 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 9, 2009). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Ming Xia Chen 17

v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 18 standards of review are well-established. See8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 20 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 This petition arises from proceedings following the BIA’s 22 grant of reopening. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in 23

2declining to consider Bala’s argument that he suffered past 1 persecution after the fall of communism, as those arguments 2 were rejected during his original proceedings and the BIA 3 granted reopening only to allow him to present claims that 4 “relate[d] to new developments since [his] merits hearing.” 5 See Singh v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 135, 139 (2d Cir. 2006) 6 (“Motions to reopen are designed to allow consideration of 7 circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the applicant’s 8 previous hearing.”); Gomes v. Gonzales , 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 9 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that BIA did not err in declining 10 to address petitioners’ already litigated claims in reopened 11 proceedings). 12 As to Bala’s claim that he had a well-founded fear of 13 persecution due to changes in conditions in Albania, the 14 agency reasonably concluded that Bala failed to establish an 15 objectively reasonable fear based on his activities as a 16 member of Albania’s Democratic Party. See Hoxhallari v. 17 Gonzales , 468 F.3d 179, 188 (2d Cir. 2006)(per curiam). The 18 agency reasonably relied on the Department of State’s 2008 19 Country Report, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 471 20 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006), which indicated that the 21 Democratic Party regained control of the Parliament in 2005 22 and that political parties have been operating without 23 3reprisal or restriction since that time. Additionally, Bala’s 1 expert witness acknowledged that there had been a downward 2 trend in political violence, and conceded that he was not 3 aware of any individuals deported to Albania who were being 4 targeted for retaliation. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 5 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (denying petition 6 due to “absence of solid support” in record for fear of 7 persecution, such that petitioner’s fear was “speculative at 8 best”). 9 Because Bala was unable to show the objective likelihood 10 of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was 11 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to 12 succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. 13 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Gomez v. INS , 947 14 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991). 15 Additionally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in 16 concluding that Bala did not demonstrate “compelling reasons 17 for being unwilling or unable to return to the country arising 18 out of the severity of the past persecution.” 8 C.F.R. 19 § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A); see Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141, 152 20 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Matter of Chen , 20 I. & N. Dec. 16, 21 19 (B.I.A. 1989) (“[T]here may be cases where the favorable 22

4exercise of discretion is warranted for humanitarian reasons 1 even if there is little likelihood of future persecution.”). 2 Because both the agency and this Court had already addressed 3 the severity of Bala’s past harm, the only new issue before 4 the agency was whether Bala’s evidence of present mental 5 health problems merited a grant of asylum. The agency 6 reasonably concluded that Bala did not demonstrate that his 7 current psychological symptoms arose from severe past 8 persecution. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 120 n.9 (2d 9 Cir. 2010). 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11

DENIED. 12
FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 14 15 16

5