NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-3378 ____________ ALEKSANDER NILAJ; MIRE PRELDAKAJ, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A097-529-652; A097-529-653) Immigration Judge: Dorothy Harbeck _____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 1, 2020 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: September 1, 2020) ____________ OPINION * ______________ GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Aleksander Nilaj and Mire Preldakaj (collectively, “Petitioners”) are a husband and wife who entered the United States in 2006 without valid entry documents. Over a decade after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final order for their removal, Petitioners filed a motion with the Board to reopen proceedings. Petitioners now seek review of the Board’s denial of that motion. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Petitioners attempted to enter the United States from Albania in October 2006, and sought asylum relief, withholding of removal, and protection under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture Act. Following a merits hearing in which Petitioners presented evidence of a fear of persecution by the Socialist Party in Albania for Nilaj’s membership and participation in the Democratic Party of Albania, 1 an * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Nilaj had testified that he was persecuted on three occasions: (1) In 1990, nearly a decade and a half prior to his arrival in the United States, when the Socialist Party was in power, Nilaj stated that was beaten by the police, but not arrested or detained, for toppling a statue of Stalin; (2) Nilaj received unspecified threats from 1997 to 1999 to stop canvassing on behalf of the Democratic Party of Albania; and (3) Nilaj was shot in 2 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioners relief. Although the IJ found Nilaj’s testimony to be credible, she determined Nilaj did not demonstrate harm rising to the level of persecution or “that the [Albanian] government was unable or unwilling to control” Socialist Party persecutors, A.R. 67. In so finding, the IJ pointed out that, at the time of the hearing, the Socialists were no longer in power and the Country Conditions report from the State Department did not indicate any increased violence against Democratic Party members. 2 Petitioners appealed unsuccessfully to the Board, which issued a final order of removal on July 22, 2008. This Court denied the petition for review. Nilaj v. Att’y Gen., 361 F. App’x 314 (3d Cir. 2010). On September 14, 2018, Petitioners filed a motion with the Board to reopen removal proceedings, arguing that conditions in Albania had changed because the Socialist Party had regained power. Despite the regime change, the Board denied Petitioners’ motion, concluding that the “the documents submitted with the motion are not sufficient to show that the applicants are now likely to meet their burden ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals