10-3638-ag Dacaj v. Holder BIA Rohan, IJ A088 524 989 

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

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMA RY 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 4 th** **day of April, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,**  7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **REENA RAGGI,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **SHKODRAN DACAJ,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-3638-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Fatos Koleci, Milford, Connecticut.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Blair T. O’Connor,** 26 **Assistant Director; Don G. Scroggin,** 27 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, United** 29 **States Department of Justice,** 30 **Washington, D.C.** 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 3 review is DENIED. 4 Shkodran Dacaj, a native of Serbia and a citizen of 5 Kosovo, seeks review of an August 10, 2010 decision of the 6 BIA affirming the April 23, 2008 decision of Immigration 7 Judge (“IJ”) Patricia A. Rohan, denying his application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shkodran Dacaj , 10 No. A088 524 989 (B.I.A. Aug. 10, 2010), aff’g No. A088 524 11 989 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 23, 2008). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history, which we reference only as necessary to 14 explain our decision to deny the petition for review. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e. , minus the 17 arguments for denying relief that were not considered by the 18

BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 19 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 20 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin 21 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 22

233 For applications, such as this one, governed by the 1 REAL ID Act, in order to demonstrate eligibility for asylum 2 and withholding of removal, “the applicant must establish 3 that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 4 social group, or political opinion was or will be at least 5 one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see Castro v. 7 Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 104 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Matter of 8

C-T-L- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 344–46 (BIA 2010) (extending 9 “one central reason” standard to withholding of removal). 10 Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 11 determination that Dacaj’s testimony lacked sufficient 12 detail to show that his political opinion was “one central 13 reason” for the harm he suffered and feared in Kosovo. 14 An alien’s uncorroborated testimony may suffice to 15 carry his burden only where it is “consistent, detailed, and 16 credible.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196-97 (2d 17 Cir. 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1231(b)(3)(C). In this case, the agency reasonably found 19 that Dacaj’s testimony alone, even if credible and 20 consistent, was not sufficiently detailed to support his 21 assertion that the harm he suffered and feared in Kosovo was 224 at the hands of political parties who targeted him on 1 account of his membership in the Alliance for the Future of 2 Kosovo (“AAK”), in light of substantial evidence of 3 financial motives for the attacks. See Chuilu , 575 F.3d at 4 196. Moreover, the agency was entitled to conclude that the 5 statements by Dacaj’s family members and other evidence 6 submitted by Dacaj were insufficient to corroborate his 7

account. 8 Further, even if Dacaj could show past persecution 9 creating a presumption of future persecution, the agency 10 properly found that this presumption was rebutted by 11 evidence of changed country conditions. See Lecaj v. 12 Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2010). As the agency 13 found, Kosovo declared its independence in 2008 and Dacaj 14 has provided no evidence of recent inter-party strife or 15 violence against ethnic Albanians. Nor do Dacaj’s 16 generalized assertions of recent “politically motivated 17 killings” or Kosovo’s continuing “political problems” 18 establish a fear of future persecution absent a presumption. 19 Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s 20 determination that Dacaj failed to meet his burden of proof 21 as to his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C); see 235 also Chuilu , 575 F.3d at 196-99. Dacaj does not challenge 1 the agency’s denial of CAT relief. We lack jurisdiction to 2 consider Dacaj’s argument that he is eligible for 3 humanitarian relief because he failed to exhaust that claim 4 before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Karaj v. 5 Gonzales , 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 14
FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 18