Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; July 15, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Senke Zadrima, a citizen of Albania, seeks judicial review of a BIA order affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision that denied her relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA's decision, dated September 19, 2008, upheld the IJ’s findings from June 22, 2007, and is reviewed with the IJ's decision supplemented by the BIA's analysis. The court applies the substantial evidence standard to assess the agency's factual findings and reviews legal questions de novo.
The agency determined that Zadrima did not meet her burden of proof for CAT relief, adhering to a previous court order that mandated independent analysis of her claim. The IJ's adverse credibility determination, previously affirmed, significantly undermined her CAT claim, especially since her likelihood of torture was heavily reliant on her credibility.
The IJ and BIA considered the Country Profile and related documents concerning the abduction of women in Albania but found no evidence that the Albanian government was complicit in trafficking. The 2006 Country Report indicates the government’s active measures against trafficking, despite noting some police corruption. However, the overall evidence suggested a government effort to combat trafficking, rather than acquiescence to it, which is crucial under the definition of torture as per regulatory standards.
'Acquiescence' in legal terms does not necessitate formal 'consent or approval'; it merely requires that government officials are aware of or intentionally ignore an act and subsequently fail to fulfill their legal duty to prevent it, as established in Khouzam v. Ashcroft. The Petitioner failed to provide specific evidence indicating a likely risk of abduction and trafficking, relying instead on general evidence regarding the trafficking of Albanian women. This lack of particularized evidence parallels findings in Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, where the court determined that a reasonable factfinder would not conclude that the petitioner faced a significant likelihood of torture upon return to China. Consequently, the agency's denial of the Petitioner's request for Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief was upheld. The petition for review is therefore DENIED, any prior stay of removal is VACATED, and any pending motions related to the stay are DISMISSED as moot. Additionally, requests for oral argument are DENIED under the relevant Federal and Local Rules.
