MITAJ v. ROSEN (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner, Daniel Mitaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a November 29, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a November 15, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Daniel Mitaj, No. A XXX XX9 278 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018), aff'g No. A XXX XX9 278 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 15, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

We have reviewed both the IJ's and the BIA's decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, upholding them so long as “they are supported by reasonable, substantial[,] and probative evidence in the record.” Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282 (2d Cir. 2006). By contrast, we review questions of law and the application of law to undisputed facts de novo. See Yanqin Weng, 562 F.3d at 513; Edimo-Doualla, 464 F.3d at 281.

To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b)(1), (2). The protected ground must be “at least one central reason” for the claimed persecution, and the applicant must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of the persecutor's motives. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 346–48 (B.I.A. 2010) (holding that the “one central reason” standard also applies to withholding of removal); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (requiring “some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”).

Mitaj contends that he stated a claim of past persecution and has a fear of future persecution on account of his religion, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group of “Roman Catholic[s] in Northern Albania.” Specifically, he asserts that after he reported an individual to the police for breaking into his church and stealing money, that individual attacked, beat, and threatened him on multiple occasions; he further avers that the police refused to help him because the thief had connections to the police. But throughout the hearing – in response to questions from his own counsel, counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, and the IJ – Mitaj testified that the beatings were retaliation for his report to the police, and he did not offer any evidence connecting them to a protected ground. Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Mitaj failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground as required for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313–14 (2d Cir. 1999) (explaining that “general crime conditions” and “random violence” cannot support asylum claim); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812 (requiring “some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.