Bashkim Bajraktari v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A089-111-161 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999253017].. [13-1562]

Appeal: 13-1562

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1562

BASHKIM BAJRAKTARI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

November 18, 2013

Decided:

December 5, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Anthony J. Messuri, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1562

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Bashkim Bajraktari, a native and citizen of Albania,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s order
denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We dismiss in

part and deny in part the petition for review.
Bajraktari

challenges

the

finding

below

that

no

exception applied to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
application.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), the Attorney

General’s decision regarding whether an alien has complied with
the one-year time limit for filing an application for asylum or
established
waiver

of

changed
that

or

time

extraordinary

limit

is

not

circumstances
reviewable

by

justifying
any

Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
8

U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D)

§ 1252(a)(2)(B),

(C),

“or

(2012)
in

any

provides
other

that

court.

Although

nothing

provision

of

in
this

chapter . . . which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall
be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or
questions of law,” this court has held that the question of
whether an asylum application is untimely or whether the changed
or

extraordinary

discretionary

circumstances

determination

based

exception
on

factual

Gomis, 571 F.3d at 358 (emphasis omitted).
2

applies

“is

a

circumstances.”

Accordingly, “absent

Appeal: 13-1562

a

Doc: 30

colorable

court’s]

Filed: 12/05/2013

constitutional

review

of

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).”
such

issues,

We therefore

we

lack

dismiss

claim

the

Id.

Pg: 3 of 4

or

issue

question
is

of

not

law,

[the

authorized

by

Because Bajraktari fails to raise any
jurisdiction

the

petition

to

for

review
review

this
of

finding.

Bajraktari’s

asylum claim.
Next,
failed

to

Bajraktari

qualify

for

the

disputes
relief

of

the

conclusion

withholding

of

that

he

removal.

“Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)
[(2012)] if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that
[his] life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Gomis,

571 F.3d at 359 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3).
substantial

We have reviewed the record and conclude that

evidence

supports

the

agency’s

determination

that

Bajraktari failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future
persecution

on

account

of

a

protected

ground.

Because

the

evidence does not compel us to conclude to the contrary, we
uphold the denial of relief.

See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d

265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012).
Finally, we uphold the finding below that Bajraktari did not
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to Albania so as to qualify for protection
3

Appeal: 13-1562

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/05/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

under the Convention Against Torture.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)

(2013).
We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART,
DENIED IN PART

4