No. 09-3038-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
September 17, 2010.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Sam Gjoni, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Aviva L. Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Vilson Vushaj-Cekoj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a July 7, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the November 15, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Vilson Vushaj-Cekoj, No. A094 927 369 (B.I.A. July 7, 2009), affg No. A094 927 369 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 15, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir. 2000) (“We reverse [the BIA] only if no reasonable fact-finder could have failed to find the past persecution or fear of future persecution necessary to sustain the petitioner’s burden.”).
We need not decide whether the agency erred in finding that petitioner failed to
Page 765
establish past persecution based on his allegations of a brief detention and relatively minor beating for his support of the Democratic Party before the 2005 election, along with anonymous letters directing him to leave the party. Cf. Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The BIA must . . . be keenly sensitive to the fact that a `minor beating’ or, for that matter, any physical degradation designed to cause pain, humiliation, or other suffering may rise to the level of persecution if it occurred in the context of an arrest or detention on the basis of a protected ground.”); but see Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[Persecution does not encompass mere harassment.”); Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 449 F.3d 408, 412 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that “[t]his Court, and others, previously have rejected . . . claims involving `unfulfilled’ threats” as constituting past persecution). Given the changed country conditions alluded to by the agency — that the Democratic Party, with which petitioner was affiliated, won the election in 2005 and has been in power ever since — the agency reasonably determined that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while petitioner “may have a subjective fear of future persecution based on his Democratic Party affiliation . . . the IJ’s perfunctory finding of changed conditions in Albania is adequate.”); see also Latifi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 103, 106 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[W]e take judicial notice of the fact that the Democratic Party returned to power in Albania through general elections in July [2005].”).
Petitioner’s claim for asylum accordingly fails, and Petitioner does not challenge the agency’s denial of his application for with-holding of removal or CAT relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.