Opinion ID: 814959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Immigration and Naturalization Act

Text: Section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), states that “[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien . . . if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.” A “refugee” is defined as [A]ny person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . . 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Therefore, in order to demonstrate that one is a refugee, and hence eligible for asylum, a petitioner must show that he is part of one of the protected classes given in the statute, and that he has, at the very least, “a well-founded fear of persecution” on the basis of his membership in that group. As other circuits have phrased it, without a nexus between the purported attacks and membership in a protected group, there can be no persecution upon which to predicate asylum. See Handono v. Attorney General, 226 F. App’x 237, 238 (3d Cir. 2007). 4 No. 11-4338 Petitioner’s claim for asylum fails at every stage of this analysis. As a general rule, perceived wealth is not considered a social group within the meaning of the INA. See Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187, 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (“A social group is a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable . . . [and] fundamental characteristic that either cannot be changed or should not be required to be changed because it is fundamental to the members’ individual identities or consciences.” (quoting Lugovyj v. Holder, 353 F. App’x 8, 10 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, even if this Court accepted all of Petitioner’s representations regarding incidents in Albania as true, and even were this Court to assume that he had a well-founded fear of future attacks, there would still be no basis upon which to afford him asylum. And this Court should not assume that these representations are true; the BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Petitioner was not credible, a factual determination supported by substantial evidence in the record, and for which no contrary evidence compells an alternative finding. Petitioner also cannot claim that the facts justify a claim of persecution. Assuming that Petitioner’s representations regarding the past incidents in Albania were true, persecution is defined as “the infliction of harm or suffering by the government, or persons the government is unwilling or unable to control, to overcome a characteristic of the victim.” Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 365 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2009)) (quotation marks omitted). Petitioner may have been the victim of a crime, but he was not persecuted within the meaning of the statute. Petitioner also seeks withholding of removal, but to obtain a withholding, Petitioner would have to meet an even higher burden of proof than he would in order to obtain asylum. See Pablo- 5 No. 11-4338 Sanchez v. Holder, 600 F.3d 592, 594 (6th Cir. 2010); Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005) (“An alien seeking withholding of removal must demonstrate that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the country of removal.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Therefore, it is unnecessary for this Court to address his claim for withholding of removal under the INA. See Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971, 979 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Thus, an applicant who fails to establish his eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal.”).