2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-7-2005 

# Ge rme nji v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1531

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ge rme n ji v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1062. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/10621 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 04- 1531 

### SILV AN A G ERMENJI; ROXHERSIGERMENJ I , Mi nor Chi l d, Peti ti on er s v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , O n A ppeal fr om the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce

D i s tr i ctN o: A 78- 191- 374 Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay5, 2005 B efor e: M cK ee, Sm i th, V an A ntw erpen, C i r cui tJ udges

OP I NI ON ( Fi l ed: J une 7, 2005) M cK ee, C i r cui tJ udge. Si l vana G erm enj i appea l s the dec i s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s for her s el f and he rm i norchi l d. T he B I A aff i r m ed the dec i s i on of an I m m i gr at i on J udge deny i ng thei rr eques tforas y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . Forthe r eas ons that f o l l o w, we d i s mi s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A ’ s opi ni on m us tbe uphel d i f i ti s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence on t he2

re c o rd . A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft, 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e is m or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a and i s s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ght acc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” S e n a th i r a j a h v . I NS , 157 F. 3d 210 , 216 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . W e w i l l uphol d t he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on “unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat or w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary ”. 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). A n ali en m ov i ng for asy l um or w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al m ustest abli sh t hat s he is a “refugee.”8 C . F . R . §2 08 . 13 (a) . “R efug ee, ” i s defi ned as:

A n y p e r s o n w h o i s o u t s i d e a n y c o u n try o f s u c h p e r s o n 's n a tio n a lityo r, in th e c a se o f a p e rso n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u tsid e a n yc o u n tryin w h ich su c h p e rso n las t h a b itu a lly re sid e d , an d w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to , an d is unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f orher s el f of the pr ot ect i on of, thatcountr ybeca us e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f ear o f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ). T he “w el l founded f

ear ” r equi r ementi s s at i s fi ed byes t abl i s hi ng a s ubj ect i ve fe ar s uppor t ed byan obj ect i vel yr eal pos s i bi l i tyof per s ecut i on upon the r eturn t o one’ s nat i ve c o u n tr y . I

N S v. C ar doz a- Fons eca, 4 8 0 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 3 0 -3 1 (1 9 8 7 ). If a n a lien su c c e ss f

u lly demonstr at es pas tper s ecut i on, w e w i l l pr es um e a w el l founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on a b s e n t e v id e n c e o f

c h a n g e d c ir c u m s ta n c e . H o w e v e r, t h a t p re s u m p tio n is re b u tta b le . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 1 ). H er e, the B I A concl uded thatG erm enj i had nots at i s fi ed herbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng3

p ast p erse cu ti o n b ec au se o f a n yp rotec ted c lassifi ca ti o n o r trait . A . R . 9 . T h e B IA concl uded thatpet i t i oner s ’ evi dence di d nots uppor tthe r equi r ed nexus betw een the thr eat s , har as s m entoratt empt ed ki dnapi ng and G erm enj i ’ s pol i t i cal opi ni on or m e m b e rs h ip in a s o c ia l g ro u p . IN S v . E lia s -Za c a r ia s , 502 U . S. 478, 483 ( 1992) . T hat c o n c lu s io n is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . G erm en ji claim ed that sh e su ff

ere d p ast p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of h er h u sb an d ’s fai l ur e t o r efr ai n fr om i nves t i gat i ng the per cei ved i rr egul ar i t i es i n the t ax r ecor ds of “M agj i k B i ngo” and thathe w as w arned thatthe companyhad t i es t o l eade r s of the Soci al i s tPar ty . H ow ever , the evi dence thatG erm enj i offe r s i n s uppor tof herr eques tfor re lief is in su f f icie n t to c o n n e c t th e m istre a tm e n t sh e su f f e re d u p o n re tu rn in g to A lb a n ia to th e A lb a n ian g o v e rn m e n t o r g ro u p s th e g o v e rn m e n t eith e r c o n tro ls o r is u n a b le to c o n tro l. R a th e r, itis ju st a s lik e lyth a t G e rm e n ji w a s a c c o ste d a n d th re a ten e d b ya g e n ts o f M a g jik B in g o w ith o u t in stig a tio n o f , o r in a c tio n b y , rep re se n tativ e s o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. T he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatG erm enj i di d notes t abl i s h a fe arof per s ecut i on bas ed upon fa m i l yas s oci at i ons ( the “s oci al gr oup”) i s al s o s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evidence. G erm enji ’s soci al group cl ai m hinges on an att ack she exp eri enced i n A ug ust 2 0 0 0 . S h e testi fied that o n e o f th e a tt ac k ers y ell ed , “W e w arn ed y o u r hu sb an d that w e a re w at chi ng and thatw e do no for getanythi ng. . . T el l hi m t o be ca r eful ! ” I n Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1238- 39 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , thi s C our tadopt ed the def i ni t i on of “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup” s etouti n Ma tte ro f A c o s ta , 19 I . & N . D ec. 211, 233 ( B I A 1985) , w her ei n the4

B I A s t at ed thatper s ecut i on on acc ountof an i ndi vi dual ’ s “ki ns hi p t i es ”. H er e, G e rm e n ji’s te stim o n yse e m s to e sta b lish m istre a tm e n t o n a c c o u n t o f h e r k in sh ip ties w ith h e r h u sb a n d . H o w e v e r, as n o ted , sh e d id n o t es tab lish a c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th is m i s tr eatm entand the A l bani an governm entorgr oups the governm enti s unabl e or u n w ill in g to c o n tro l. W i thhol di ng of r emoval r equi r es thatthe appl i cantdemonstr at e bya “c l ear p r o b a b i l i ty” s h e w i l l b e s u b j e c tt o p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on upon r eturn t o hernat i ve c o u n tr y . IN

S v . S te v ic , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 24 8 9 , 8 1 L .E d .2 d 3 2 1 (1 9 8 4 ). S in c e th is is a hi ghers t andar d t han r equi r ed foras y l um , G erm enj i ’ s cl ai m forw i thhol di ng of r el i ef f a lls w ith h e r a s y lu m c la im . L u kw a g o v . A s h c r o ft, 3 2 9 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). We th e r e f

o r e mu s td i s mi s s Ge r me n j i ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.

_________