18-3796 Mitaj v. Rosen BIA Navarro, IJ A206 189 278 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 8th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DANIEL MITAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3796 17 NAC 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. * 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, Law Office of 24 James A. Lombardi, P.C., New York, 25 New York. 26

* Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy 3 S. Ferrier , Assistant Director; 4 Micah Engler, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, D.C.

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

11 is DENIED.

12 Petitioner, Daniel Mitaj, a native and citizen of

13 Albania, seeks review of a November 29, 2018 decision of the

14 BIA affirming a November 15, 2017 decision of an Immigration

15 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and

16 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In

17 re Daniel Mitaj, No. A 206 189 278 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018),

18 aff’g No. A 206 189 278 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 15, 2017). We

19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

20 procedural history.

21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.

22 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

, 528

23 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings under

24 the substantial evidence standard, upholding them so long as

25 “they are supported by reasonable, substantial[,] and

2 1 probative evidence in the record.” Yanqin Weng v. Holder,

2

(2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks

3 omitted); see also

(b)(4)(B) (stating that

4 “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless

5 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to

6 the contrary”); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales,

, 282

7 (2d Cir. 2006). By contrast, we review questions of law and

8 the application of law to undisputed facts de novo. See

9 Yanqin Weng,

; Edimo-Doualla,

.

10 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant

11 must establish past persecution or a fear of future

12 persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C.

13 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A);

(b),

14 1208.16(b)(1), (2). The protected ground must be “at least

15 one central reason” for the claimed persecution, and the

16 applicant must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of

17 the persecutor’s motives.

(b)(1)(B)(i)

18 (asylum); see also

§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding); Matter

19 of C-T-L-,

, 346–48 (B.I.A. 2010) (holding

20 that the “one central reason” standard also applies to

21 withholding of removal); INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

,

3 1 483 (1992) (requiring “some evidence of [motive], direct or

2 circumstantial”).

3 Mitaj contends that he stated a claim of past persecution

4 and has a fear of future persecution on account of his

5 religion, political opinion, and membership in a particular

6 social group of “Roman Catholic[s] in Northern Albania.”

7 Specifically, he asserts that after he reported an individual

8 to the police for breaking into his church and stealing money,

9 that individual attacked, beat, and threatened him on

10 multiple occasions; he further avers that the police refused

11 to help him because the thief had connections to the police.

12 But throughout the hearing – in response to questions from

13 his own counsel, counsel for the Department of Homeland

14 Security, and the IJ – Mitaj testified that the beatings were

15 retaliation for his report to the police, and he did not offer

16 any evidence connecting them to a protected ground.

17 Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Mitaj

18 failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground as required

19 for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

20 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); Melgar de Torres v. Reno,

21

, 313–14 (2d Cir. 1999) (explaining that “general

22 crime conditions” and “random violence” cannot support asylum

4 1 claim); Elias-Zacarias,

(requiring “some

2 evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”).

3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

4 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

5 stays VACATED.

6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 8 Clerk of Court

5