[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10131

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A206-904-014

ARNOLD KAPA, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(January 12, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 1 of 14 
2

Petitioner Arnold Kapa, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s 

(“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). On appeal, 

Petitioner challenges the agency’s denial of his applications for relief, arguing that 

he met his burden of showing that he suffered past persecution and has a wellfounded fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion. After 

careful review, we dismiss his petition in part and deny in part. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Initiation of Removal Proceedings

In May 2015, Petitioner arrived in the United States without a valid 

immigration visa or entry document. The Department of Homeland Security 

(“DHS”) subsequently issued Petitioner a notice to appear, charging him with 

removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(1), for being an alien who 

attempted to enter the United States without a valid entry document. Petitioner 

conceded removability and indicated that he would be seeking relief in the form of 

asylum and withholding of removal. 

B. Asylum Application and Merits Hearing

Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, 

alleging that he feared returning to Albania on account of his political opinion. 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 2 of 14 
3

Specifically, he averred that he had experienced harm and mistreatment in Albania

due to his participation in the Democratic Party. 

The IJ conducted a merits hearing on Petitioner’s application at which 

Petitioner and his aunt testified. According to Petitioner, he feared returning to 

Albania because of his involvement with the Democratic Party. In 2013, he 

assisted the Democratic Party with its campaign against the Socialist Party because

the Democratic Party promised him a job in exchange for his participation. The 

Democratic Party sought out Petitioner’s participation in hopes of obtaining the 

votes of Petitioner’s family members. 

While walking home from a Democratic Party meeting on June 23, 2013, 

Petitioner was stopped by four people wearing masks. They threatened him and 

his family, and then beat him until he was unconscious. Two of his friends later 

found him and took him home. Because the individuals wore masks, Petitioner 

could not see their faces but he knew they were civilians. Petitioner was able to 

identify one of the attackers by “his voice” as Vetar Lipo, a militant of the Socialist 

Party at the time of the attack. He believed that each of the attackers were “active 

with the government” because of the “nature of [their] threats” and because “they 

were delivering food in exchange for the poor people’s vote for the Socialist 

Party.” 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 3 of 14 
4

As a result of the attack, Petitioner sustained injuries to his chest, leg, hand, 

and head. The next day, he went to the village doctor, who referred him to the 

hospital. He did not go to the hospital, however, because he could not afford the 

treatment. Instead, Petitioner’s mother and grandmother treated him with folk 

medicine. 

Following the Democratic Party’s loss in the 2013 election, Petitioner’s 

father lost his job. Petitioner learned the day before the merits hearing that his 

mother had also lost her job. Petitioner stated that his parents lost their jobs 

following the 2013 and 2015 elections because his family never voted for the 

Socialist Party. Petitioner feared arrest, torture, and death at the hands of the 

Albanian police and government, which were controlled by the Socialist Party. 

Petitioner’s aunt Etleva Lilo testified regarding the June 2013 attack and 

about the political and economic conditions in Albania. Lilo stated that when her 

sister, Petitioner’s mother, called to tell her that Petitioner had been attacked, her 

sister explained that Petitioner did not go to the hospital because of political and 

economic reasons. She further stated that her sister lost her job because she did not 

vote for the Socialist Party. 

C. Decisions of the IJ and BIA

The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and CAT relief. At the outset, the IJ found Petitioner to be credible. However, the 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 4 of 14 
5

IJ determined that Petitioner failed to show that he suffered past persecution. The 

IJ explained that the mistreatment Petitioner had experienced, including a single 

beating combined with threats and harassment were insufficient to establish past 

persecution. The IJ further found that Petitioner had failed to show that the 

Albanian government was involved in his mistreatment, or that the government 

was unable or unwilling to protect him. Petitioner had also failed to meet his 

burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution. Although 

Petitioner might have a subjective fear of returning to Albania, the IJ determined 

that based on the evidence, a reasonable person would not fear returning to 

Albania. Finally, the IJ denied Petitioner’s claims for withholding of removal and 

CAT relief. 

Petitioner appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ erred in finding that he 

was not the victim of past persecution on account of his political opinion. In 

particular, Petitioner argued that the IJ erred by concluding that the 2013 beating 

did not amount to persecution. Additionally, the IJ erred by finding that Petitioner 

had not met his burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution, as 

Petitioner would likely be singled out for persecution based on his membership in 

the Democratic Party. 

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. The BIA first determined that Petitioner 

had failed to establish that he suffered past persecution. The BIA agreed with the 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 5 of 14 
6

IJ’s determination that the 2013 beating was a single, isolated incident that did not 

rise to the level of persecution. The BIA further agreed with the IJ’s determination 

that Petitioner had not shown that he was harmed by the Albanian government or 

that the he was targeted by a group that the Albanian government was unable or 

unwilling to control. The BIA also concluded that Petitioner had not met his 

burden of proof to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, as the 

evidence did not support Petitioner’s claim that he would be mistreated based on 

his political opinion. Finally, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s 

claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA has 

expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, in which case we review both decisions. 

Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1330 (11th Cir. 2001). We also review 

the IJ’s decision to the extent that the BIA adopted its reasoning or found the IJ’s 

reasons to be supported by the record. Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 

1364 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, because the BIA issued its own opinion, we review 

the BIA’s decision. But because the BIA also agreed with several aspects of the 

IJ’s opinion, we review the decision of the IJ to the extent of that agreement. See 

id. 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 6 of 14 
7

We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Guzman-Munoz v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 733 F.3d 1311, 1313 (11th Cir. 2013). We review factual findings for 

substantial evidence. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 

2005). Under the substantial evidence test, we must affirm a determination “if it is 

supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record 

considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation omitted). We view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the agency’s decision, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor 

of that decision. Id. In other words, we cannot overturn a finding of fact unless 

the record compels it. See id. at 1287. 

B. Asylum and Withholding of Removal

Petitioner argues that he met his burden for establishing eligibility for 

asylum and withholding of removal because he demonstrated that he suffered past 

persecution and because he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of 

his political opinion. 

An applicant for asylum must meet the Immigration and Nationality Act’s 

(“INA”) definition of a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is a person

who cannot return to his or her home country due to “persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership 

in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To 

establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate either past 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 7 of 14 
8

persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, based on a statutorily 

listed factor. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006). 

An alien must show that he was persecuted by the government or by a group 

that the government is unable or unwilling to control. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). When an alien alleges that he was persecuted 

by a private actor, he must prove that he is “unable to avail himself of the 

protection of his home country by presenting evidence that he reported the 

persecution to local government authorities or that it would have been useless to do 

so.” Id. at 950 (quotation omitted). If the applicant demonstrates past persecution, 

there is a rebuttal presumption that he has a well-founded fear of future 

persecution. Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257.

To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that his 

life or freedom would be threatened in his country of origin on account of the 

alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The burden is on the alien to 

show a clear probability of future persecution, meaning that it is “more likely than 

not” that he will be persecuted or tortured if returned to his country. Sepulveda v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 8 of 14 
9

1. Past Persecution 

Petitioner asserts that the BIA erred in finding that the mistreatment he 

suffered, including the 2013 beating did not rise to the level of past persecution. 

He also argues that the BIA erred in concluding that he failed to prove that he was 

harmed by the Albanian government or by a group that the Albanian government 

was unable or unwilling to control. 

At the outset, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to review 

Petitioner’s past persecution claim because we lack jurisdiction to review a 

particular challenge to a final order unless the alien has exhausted his available 

administrative remedies by raising that challenge before the BIA. Indrawati v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). While not an exacting 

requirement, the alien must go beyond “[u]nadorned, conclusory statements” and 

have at least “previously argued the ‘core issue now on appeal’ before the BIA” by 

providing it “information sufficient to enable [it] to review and correct any errors 

below.” Id. (quoting Montano Cisneros v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1224, 1228 

n.3 (11th Cir. 2008)). 

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims on the basis of past persecution. Petitioner failed to 

exhaust his argument that he was unable to avail himself of the protection of the 

Albanian government because he did not raise any argument in his brief to the BIA 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 9 of 14 
10

challenging the IJ’s findings that the record failed to show either that his attackers 

were government actors or that the Albanian government was either unable or 

unwilling to protect him from civilian attackers, particularly where he did not 

report the attack to authorities. Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297. 

Because Petitioner was required to show that he was unable to avail himself 

of Albania’s protection in order to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding 

of removal, his failure to exhaust this issue to the BIA was fatal to his past 

persecution claim. See Ayala, 605 F.3d at 948. That the BIA sua sponte addressed 

this issue does not change the result. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

463 F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) (concluding that this Court lacks jurisdiction 

over unexhausted arguments even if the BIA addresses them sua sponte). And 

although Petitioner exhausted his argument that the mistreatment he suffered rises 

to the level of persecution, we nevertheless lack jurisdiction over his past 

persecution claim because such review would have no effect on the judgment. See 

Malu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 764 F.3d 1282, 1290–91 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that 

even if an issue is reviewable, we lack jurisdiction over that issue where it would 

have no effect on the judgment). Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s argument 

that the agency erred in finding that he did not suffer past persecution. 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 10 of 14 
11

2. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution

Because Petitioner failed to establish past persecution, he is not entitled to a 

rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Ruiz, 440 

F.3d at 1257. Thus, in order to show a well-founded fear of future persecution 

Petitioner must show that “there is a reasonable possibility” he will suffer 

persecution if he returns to Albania. Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196, 

1200 (11th Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted). The fear must be subjectively and 

objectively reasonable. Id. Petitioner “does not have to prove he would be singled 

out if he can establish a pattern or practice of persecution of a group of which he is 

a member.” Id. 

Here, the record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s finding that 

Petitioner did not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. The 

evidence shows that Petitioner remained in Albania without incident for two years

after the 2013 attack. Moreover, the U.S. State Department Country Report on 

Albania showed no reports of politically-motivated killings, disappearances, or 

beatings or abuse by police. 

Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 

Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable possibility that he would be singled out 

for persecution or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of the group to 

which Petitioner belongs. See id. Because Petitioner failed to meet the less 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 11 of 14 
12

onerous standard to support his claim for asylum, he cannot meet the more 

stringent burden for withholding of removal. See Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 

F.3d 815, 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Because the record does not compel the 

determination that there is a reasonable probability that the petitioner[] will be 

persecuted on account of [his] political opinion, [he] also do[es] not meet the 

greater evidentiary burden for establishing eligibility for withholding of 

removal.”). 

C. CAT Relief

Petitioner asserts that the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s denial of his 

claim for CAT relief without properly evaluating the evidence showing that it was 

more likely than not that he would be singled out for torture. 

To obtain relief under CAT, an alien must show that it is more likely than 

not that he would be tortured if returned to his country of removal. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 208.16(c)(2). By arguing that the BIA failed to properly evaluate the evidence 

related to his CAT claim, Petitioner appears to argue that the BIA failed to give 

reasoned consideration to his claim. When determining whether the BIA gave 

reasoned consideration to a petitioner’s claims, we look to whether the BIA 

“consider[ed] the issues raised and announce[d] its decision in terms sufficient to 

enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely 

reacted.” Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotations 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 12 of 14 
13

omitted). Although the BIA is required to consider all of the evidence presented, 

we do not require it to specifically address each claim and piece of evidence 

submitted by the petitioner. Id. 

Here, the BIA’s determination that Petitioner had not shown that it was more 

likely than not that he would face torture in Albania reflects reasoned 

consideration. “This is not a case where the BIA misstated the contents of the 

record, failed to adequately explain its rejection of a logical conclusion, or 

provided an unreasonable justification for its decision that did not respond to an 

argument in the record.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 804 (11th Cir. 

2016). While Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to consider that one of his 

attackers now works for the Albanian Chief of Police, the BIA was not required to 

specifically address each piece of evidence. See Tan, 446 F.3d at 1374. But in any 

event, the BIA was aware of this fact, as it referenced it in concluding that 

Petitioner failed to establish that he was harmed by the Albanian government or by 

a group that the Albanian government was unable or unwilling to control. In short, 

the record shows that the BIA considered the evidence presented and announced its 

decision in terms sufficient to enable us to know that it “heard and thought and not 

merely reacted.” See id. (quotation omitted).

To the extent Petitioner also argues that the record compels reversal of the 

agency’s denial of CAT relief, we disagree. Because Petitioner failed to establish 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 13 of 14 
14

eligibility for asylum relief, he cannot show that it is more likely than not that he 

will be tortured if returned to Albania. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 

1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Because [Petitioner] has failed to establish a claim of 

asylum on the merits, he necessarily fails to establish eligibility for . . . protection 

under CAT.”). We therefore deny this portion of the petition for review. 

III. CONCLUSION 

We dismiss the petition for review as to Petitioner’s past persecution 

arguments related to his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny 

the remainder of Petitioner’s arguments for the reasons stated above. 

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. 

Case: 16-10131 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 14 of 14