11-2785-ag Sulollari v. Holder BIA Sichel, IJ A095 370 353 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TOA 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 5 thday of April, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 Chief Judge, 8 **JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,** 9 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 10 Circuit Judges**.** 11

_____________________________________ 12 13 RENATO SULOLLARI, 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 v. 11-2785-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent **.** 21

_____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Carl H. McIntyre; Assistant 28 Director, Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States Department 31 of Justice, Washington D.C. 32 332 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Renato Sulollari, a native and citizen of 5 Albania, seeks review of a June 16, 2011, decision of the 6 BIA affirming the May 18, 2009, decision of Immigration 7 Judge (“IJ”) Helen Sichel, denying his application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Renato Sulollari , 10 No. A095 370 353 (B.I.A. June 16, 2011), aff’gNo. A095 370 11 353 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2009). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. 16 Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 18 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Weng v. U.S. Dep’t of 19 Justice , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because the BIA 20 declined to address the IJ’s credibility determination and 21 found that even assuming Sulollari’s credibility, the 223 government had demonstrated a fundamental change in country 1 conditions, we address only the agency’s dispositive future 2 persecution finding. See Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 3 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (assuming credibility when the BIA does 4 not affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility determination); see 5 also Yang, 426 F.3d at 522. We conclude that the agency 6 reasonably found that Sulollari failed to demonstrate that 7 he would suffer any harm if returned to Albania. See 8 Hoxhallari v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006). 9 The government may rebut a finding of past persecution, 10 and the resulting presumption of a well-founded fear of 11 future persecution, by showing a fundamental change in 12 conditions in the country where the petitioner suffered past 13 persecution such that the applicant’s fear of persecution is 14 no longer well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); Niang 15 v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir. 2007). Sulollari’s 16 application is based on his membership in the Democratic 17 Party (“DP”) and his fear of harm at the hands of members of 18 the Socialist Party (“SP”), who were in control of the local 19 and national government of Albania when Sulollari applied 20 for asylum in 2002. Given the fundamental change in 21 Albania–namely the DP’s 2005 takeover of the 224 government–Sulollari had the burden to establish that he has 1 a well-founded fear of harm at the hands of the government, 2 now controlled by the DP. See8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see 3 also Hoxhallari , 468 F.3d at 187-88 (concluding that alien’s 4 fear of future persecution based on his affiliation with the 5 DP was not well-founded in light of the “fundamental change 6 in the political structure and government of Albania”). 7 Sulollari argues that he fears harm if returned to Albania 8 due to local police corruption and his previous DP 9 activities, but he has not identified any evidence that the 10 local police force is SP-aligned or that DP activists have 11 been persecuted by the local police. See 8 C.F.R. 12 § 1208.13(b)(1). Moreover, Sulollari failed to demonstrate 13 that he could not relocate to a DP-controlled area; the 14 agency reasonably found DP-led government controls the 15 security apparatus throughout Albania. See 8 C.F.R. 16 § 1208.13(b)(3)(F). 17 Because the agency reasonably found that there had been 18 a fundamental change in Albania and that Sulollari had not 19 otherwise shown a well-founded fear of harm, the agency did 20 not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 21 relief because all three claims were based on the same 22 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 23 (2d Cir. 2006). 245 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 3 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 4 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 5 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 6 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second 7 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 8

FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12 13