Opinion ID: 788316
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statutory Eligibility

Text: 53 The IJ's decision may be affirmed on the alternative basis that Petitioner, even assuming the credibility of his testimony, did not establish his statutory eligibility for relief. Petitioner did not meet his burden of proving either that he suffered actual past persecution or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Petitioner bases his claim for asylum on three occurrences. Following each of two demonstrations, he was arrested and detained for a week. While Pilica stated that he was mistreated while in jail, the only example of mistreatment he provided was being sworn at. At a third demonstration, Pilica was beaten by policemen, resulting in head injuries and a week-long hospitalization. Pilica has not demonstrated that these isolated occurrences amounted to persecution. See Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir.1998) (stating that persecution requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty). 54 Further, Petitioner has not established a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ correctly pointed out that Petitioner's political involvement, consisting merely of attending five demonstrations at which he held up signs, yelled, and applauded, was sparse. Petitioner has not established that, based on this involvement, there is a reasonable possibility that he would be targeted for persecution upon his return. Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 389 (6th Cir.1998) (stating that well-founded fear of persecution must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable). There is no indication that he is on some governmental blacklist; indeed, all of the occurrences that arguably constitute past persecution resulted directly from Pilica's attendance at a demonstration rather than from the government having sought him out. See Perkovic, 33 F.3d at 621 (stating that the persecutor must be aware the alien possesses the relevant belief or characteristic, must have the capability of punishing the alien, and must have the inclination to punish the alien). The IJ also found that country conditions in Montenegro have improved substantially since Petitioner left. While there is still societal discrimination against ethnic Albanians, the situation in Montenegro is better than in other parts of Yugoslavia, and progress has been made in recent years in increasing Albanians' political representation. 55 Since Petitioner has not established entitlement to asylum, he clearly has not made the stronger showing necessary for withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3). See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) (2004) (stating, for withholding of removal, alien must establish that his life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). He also has not demonstrated his eligibility for Convention Against Torture relief. Accordingly, the Board's decision on the substantive relief sought by Petitioner is AFFIRMED.