AGANI AKA AKA AKA AKA v. SESSIONS III (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Saudin and Danijela Agani, natives of Germany and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, seek review of a May 30, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming an August 9, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Saudin Agani, Danijela Agani, Nos. A094 004 723/692 (B.I.A. May 30, 2014), aff'g No. A094 004 723/692 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 9, 2012). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed both the IJ's and BIA's decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, reversing only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b) (4) (B). We review de novo questions of law, including the application of law to undisputed facts. Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the agency reasonably concluded that the Aganis did not establish a likelihood of persecution or torture in either Bosnia and Herzegovina or Germany.

Persecution includes “non-life threatening violence and physical abuse, or non-physical forms of harm such as the deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage,” but “does not encompass mere harassment.” Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted). In the case of non-governmental persecution, the applicant must also demonstrate that the government is “unwilling or unable to control” the private actors. Ruqiang Yu v. Holder, 693 F.3d 294, 298 (2d Cir. 2012).

The agency properly declined to consider Saudin Agani's mistreatment as a child in Kosovo because Kosovo is not a country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (1) (i). The agency also reasonably concluded that the Aganis did not establish that they would be singled out for persecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of mixed ethnicity families in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2); see Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009).

The Aganis also argue that their past treatment in Germany, considered cumulatively, amounted to persecution. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (past incidents of harm should be considered cumulatively). While this treatment may amount to unlawful harassment, the agency reasonably concluded that it did not rise to the level of persecution. See Ivanishvili, 433 F.3d at 341-42 (describing the difference between harassment and persecution).

Further, the record does not compel a conclusion that the Aganis will likely face persecution in Germany. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b) (4) (B).

For the same reasons discussed above, the BIA reasonably found that the Aganis cannot show a likelihood of torture. Cf. Lecaj, 616 F.3d at 119-20.

We have considered the Aganis' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.