Opinion ID: 2973852
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Return to Albania on Humanitarian Parole

Text: The Kalajs argue that the IJ improperly considered Mr. Kalaj’s advance humanitarian parole to return to Albania to bury his sister. They contend that 8 U.S.C. § 11822 requires that when an applicant returns to this country from humanitarian parole his case should be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States. The government argues that the Kalajs construe the statute too broadly and state that the implementing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 208.8, narrowly provides that “[a]n applicant who leaves the United States pursuant to advance parole under § 212.5(f) of this chapter and returns to the country of claimed persecution shall be presumed to have abandoned his or her application, unless the applicant is able to establish compelling reasons for such return.” The government further contends that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) which provides the definition of a refugee, the Kalajs must be fully unable to return to Albania because of persecution. Thus, even though Mr. Kalaj returned to Albania under an advance parole, he can no longer establish future persecution. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1182 provides that “[t]he Attorney General may not parole into the United States an alien who is a refugee unless the Attorney General determines that compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled into the United States rather than be admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title.” Kalaj v. Gonzales Case No. 05-3172 page 9 of 13 In support of its argument, the government cites to two cases outside of this Circuit. In Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 285 (4th Cir. 2004), the court held that an asylum applicant who returned to Guatemala with her daughter to obtain medical treatment willingly returned to country of origin and was not a refugee for purposes of her asylum application. Also, in Marquez v. INS, 105 F.3d 374, 380 (7th Cir. 1997), the Seventh Circuit found that an asylum applicant who returned to the Philippines voluntarily on two occasions after the alleged persecution was not entitled to asylum because he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Both of these cases can be distinguished from this case. In Blanco and Marquez, the petitioners returned to their country under circumstances which were not compelling, namely cheap medical treatment and to see family members. In this case, Mr. Kalaj returned for nineteen days to bury his sister and attend the funeral services. This consideration, however, does not effect the outcome of the case where overall the Kalajs did not present specific, reliable evidence in support of their asylum claims. Accordingly, since the IJ’s consideration of the Kalajs’ advance parole was not determinative of their claim of future persecution, the IJ’s consideration of advance parole does not effect the fact that the Kalajs’ claim that they have a well-founded fear of future persecution was not supported by substantial evidence.