17-3116 Qosaj v. Barr BIA Bukszpan, IJ A206 140 333, 334 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 18th day of September, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANXHELA QOSAJ, ENRIK QOSAJ, Petitioners, v. No. 17-3116 (NAC) WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. DiRaimondo (Marialaina L. Masi and Stacy A. Huber on the brief), Melville, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Nehal Kamani, Aric A. Anderson, Trial Attorneys, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision is GRANTED, the decision of the BIA is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. Petitioners Anxhela and Enrik Qosaj seek review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Anxhela’s application for asylum. Because we conclude that the agency’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, we grant the petition, vacate the BIA decision, and remand for further consideration. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Anxhela Qosaj and her son Enrik are natives of Albania. They entered the United States without inspection on or about June 30, 2013, were served Notices to Appear on July 1, 2013, and thereafter conceded removability. Anxhela applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigrant and Nationality Act (“INA”), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Her case was consolidated with Enrik’s, a derivative beneficiary of Anxhela’s application under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). A hearing was held before an immigration judge on November 28, 2016, at which Anxhela testified. The IJ found her testimony credible, and the facts are largely uncontested. Anxhela is married to Nikolle Qosaj, who is also Enrik’s father. Nikolle has been a member of the Democratic Party of Albania since 1991, and Anxhela joined in 1994. Anxhela and Nikolle bought a restaurant in 2002, which they used as a meeting place for the local 2 Democratic Party. In 2005, Paulin Sterkaj—a Socialist candidate for Parliament and ex-member of the secret police—wanted to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals