Agani v. Sessions

14-2373 Agani v. Sessions BIA Morace, IJ A094 004 723/692 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of February, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SAUDIN AGANI, AKA SAUDIN LALICIC, AKA SAUD LALICIC, AKA SAUD AGANI, DANIJELA AGANI, AKA DANIYELA AGANI, Petitioners, v. 14-2373 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Lauren Anselowitz, Harlan York & Associates, Newark, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Matt A. Crapo, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 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, 2 220 (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 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals