N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ILOM IR

DJURIC , Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71884 Age n c y No. A071-758-106
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 10, 2018 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM A and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s, a

nd M IHM , *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
M AY01 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).

* * * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l M . M ihm , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.M ilom ir Djuric , a nat ive and c itiz e n of B osnia -He rz e g ovina , pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l of an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his c la im for hum anita

rian a sy lum

and the B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to re ope n. W e de ny the pe tition in pa

rt a nd dism iss it in pa rt. 1. Djuric pe t itions for re vie w of the a ge n c y ’ s de te rm ination tha t he is ine l igible for hum anita

rian a sy l um . To e sta

blish e ligibility

for hum anita

rian
a sy lum , a pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

te e i the r “ c o m

pe lling re a sons for be ing unwilling or una

ble to re turn to thec ountry arising out of the se ve rity of the pa st pe rse c ution” or “ that the re is a re a sona ble possibility

tha t he or she m ay suffe r othe r se rious ha

rm upon re m ova l to tha

t c ountry .” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii); Sow e v . Muk

ase y , 538 F.3d 1281, 1287 (9th C ir. 2008). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t Djuric ’ s forc e d de pa

rture from

his hom e town of Ze nic a

did not c onstitute

“ c o m pe lling
re a s ons.” The B IA did not e rr in de te rm ining tha t be c a use Djuric te stifie d tha

t he
wa s ne ve r phy sic a lly

ha rm e d, his wa s not a

“ rare situa

tion[] of ‘ a troc i ous’ pe rse c ution, whe re the a lie n e sta blishe s tha

t, re ga rdle ss of a

ny thre a t of future pe rse c ution, the c irc um sta nc e s surrounding the

pa st pe rse c ution we re so unusua l

2and se v e re tha t he is una

b le to re turn to his hom

e c ountry .” Vongsak

dy v . IN S , 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th C ir. 1999). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm inat ion tha t Djuric will not fa c e se rious ha

rm that “ e qua ls the se ve rity of pe rse c ution.” In reL-S- , 25 I. & N. De c . 705, 714 (B .I.A. 2012). Djuric te stifie d tha t m e m be rs of his im m e diate fam ily hav e live d without inc ide nt in B o s nia . Give n tha t fa c t , the
a ge nc y re a s ona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t Djuric will not fa c e “ substa ntia l e c o nom ic disa dva nta ge , ” Ming Xin He

v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th C i r. 2014), or suffe r

“ se ve re m e nta l or e m otiona l ha rm ,” In reL-S- , 25 I. & N. De c . at 714, in B osnia
. 2. Djuric a l so pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to
re ope n his a p plic ations for a

wa ive r of ina dm issibility unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(i)(1)
and a wa ive r of re m ova

bility unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(1)(H). Howe ve r, judic ia l
re vie w of a

n a g e nc y ’ s disc re tiona

ry de nia l of e ithe r wa i ve r is fore c lose d. 8 U.S.C
. §§ 1182(i)(2), 1252(a

)(2)(B ). This re m a ins true whe n the a ge nc y ’ s disc re tiona ry de nia l is thesubje c t

of a m otion to re ope n . Fe rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th C i r. 2006). Although judic ia l re vie w is a v a ila b le for a pe titione r’ s c olora

ble

“ c o nstitutiona

l c la im s or que stions of la w” re l a te d to the a ge nc y ’ s disc re tiona ry de c ision, 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(2)(D), a n a rgum e nt tha

t the a g e nc y

viola te d due
3proc e s s “ by

fa iling to properly

we igh the e quitie s a

nd ha rdship . . . is a

n a b use of disc re tion c ha lle nge re -c ha ra c te riz e d a s a

n a lle ge d due proc e ss viola tion” tha t doe s not give this c o urt jurisdic t ion. Bazua-C ota v
. Gonzale

s , 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th C ir. 2006) (pe r c uriam ) (orde r). Djuric ’ s purporte d due proc e ss a rgum e n ts – tha

t the IJ’ s pe rse c utor finding
a c te d a s a “ thum b on the sc a le ” be fore the B IA and tha t the B IA we ighe d his
m ilita ry se rvic e diffe re n tly

tha n tha t of othe r form e r VR S soldie rs – a re both
c om pla i nts a bout the a ge nc y ’ s we ighing of the e quitie s. Djuric ne ve r artic ulate s how the a ge n c y

“ pre v e nte d [him ] from

pre se nting [his] c a se be fore the [a ge nc y ] , de nie d a full a nd fa ir he a

ring be fore an im

pa rtia l a djudic at or, or othe rwise de nie d a ba sic due proc e ss right.” Martine z -Rosas v . Gonzale

s , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th C ir. 2005). The ne w e vide nc e Djuric subm itte d with his mo tion to re ope n “ a ddre sse [d] the s am e ba sic ha

rdship grounds c onside re d pre viously ” and wa s thus c um u lative
. Fe rnande z , 439 F.3d a

t 601–03. W e the re fore la c k jurisdic tion ove r Djuric ’ s pe tition a s it pe rta ins to theB IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to re ope n.

• ! • The pe tition is DE NIE D in par t and DISM ISSE D i n par t.

4