Opinion ID: 2972063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner’s claim for asylum

Text: Petitioner argues that the IJ misconstrued substantial and critical parts of petitioner’s testimony in determining that petitioner had not experienced past persecution. Petitioner contends that the IJ’s ruling is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence adduced at the hearing and an abuse of discretion. As we are bound by the IJ’s credibility determination, we cannot consider testimony that the IJ rejected as not credible in ascertaining whether petitioner satisfied his burden to show that he qualifies as a refugee on the basis of past persecution. When that evidence is disregarded, the record is insufficient to compel a finding that petitioner suffered past persecution. Petitioner similarly argues that the IJ’s finding that petitioner does not reasonably fear future persecution because of changed country conditions is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence adduced at the hearing and an abuse of discretion. Petitioner argues that the IJ was not justified in relying on materials submitted by the government concerning the presence of NATO forces in the region to support his finding. Petitioner contends that despite the presence of NATO forces, Kosovo remains subject to Serbian legal control, the Serbs have the authority to impose strictures similar to those enforced during the Milosevic regime’s ethnic-cleansing operation, and there is a resurgence of the nationalist mindset among the Serbs. While petitioner’s assertions suggest the possibility that the political situation in Kosovo may become perilous at some point in the future, they do not compel a finding that petitioner has a well-founded fear that he will be subjected to persecution on the basis of one of the statutorily enumerated grounds if he is removed to his home country at this time. Petitioner also objects to the IJ’s reliance on a finding of a diminished threat of persecution by KLA splinter groups as an improper taking of administrative notice. The IJ stated in his opinion that even if petitioner’s testimony regarding the overtures by KLA groups were deemed credible, 10 these incidents did not support a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution since petitioner had not suffered any harm when he declined to join the groups in the past. It was reasonable for the IJ to deduce from a lack of reprisals in the past that petitioner did not have a well-founded fear of future harm at the hands of KLA splinter groups. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. C. Petitioner’s request for withholding of removal The IJ determined that, because petitioner had not established eligibility for asylum, it followed that petitioner had not established eligibility for withholding of removal pursuant to § 241(b)(3). Considering the record in light of the IJ’s credibility determination, and applying the more stringent standard that governs a withholding of removal, a contrary finding on the matter of withholding of removal is not compelled. D. Petitioner’s request for relief under the CAT The IJ also found that petitioner had not made the necessary showing for relief under the CAT, which requires the petitioner to establish “that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). The IJ determined that petitioner’s application was not credible; petitioner had not produced evidence of past torture in that the scope of injuries inflicted upon him was too difficult to determine; petitioner had failed to show that he could not relocate to another part of Kosovo where he would likely not be tortured; and the evidence of record did not support the conclusion that human rights violations in Yugoslavia and Kosovo are so widespread as to support a grant of relief under the CAT. Petitioner argues that the evidence supports his request for relief under the CAT. In support of his argument, petitioner points to his testimony that he was wanted by the Serbian police for activities he undertook as a member of the KLA; that he was wanted by KLA splinter groups who 11 aggressively attempted to recruit him to participate in retribution against the Serbs; that past persecution had forced him to flee Kosovo; and that he had a fear of returning to Kosovo because of the unstable political situation there and his well-founded fear of a deadly conflict with KLA splinter groups if he continued to refuse to join them. Again taking into account the IJ’s credibility determination, the IJ’s finding that petitioner did not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if forced to return to Kosovo or Yugoslavia is supported by substantial evidence. Even if petitioner’s testimony as to the above matters is deemed credible, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to reach a contrary decision based on that testimony. Accordingly, the determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief under the CAT must be upheld. E. The BIA’s affirmance without opinion Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to follow proper procedure when it affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. Petitioner alleges that there were obvious flaws in the IJ’s decision, thus necessitating assignment of the case to a three-member panel for review. 12 Title 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e)(4)(i) sets forth the requirements for an “affirmance without opinion” by the BIA: The Board member to whom a case is assigned shall affirm the decision of the Service or the immigration judge, without opinion, if the Board member determines that the result reached in the decision under review was correct; that any errors in the decision under review were harmless or nonmaterial; and that (A) The issues on appeal are squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent and do not involve the application of precedent to a novel factual situation; or (B) The factual and legal issues raised on appeal are not so substantial that the case warrants the issuance of a written opinion in the case. These criteria are satisfied here. Therefore, the BIA did not err by affirming the IJ’s decision without opinion.