Arian KAMOLLI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 387 F. App'x 76

SUMMARY ORDER Arian Kamolli, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of an October 10, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the December 5, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Lawrence N. DiCostanzo, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Arian Kamolli No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA Oct. 10, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford Dec. 5, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). Although Kamolli provided credible testimony that he suffered past persecution, the agency concluded that the government rebutted the presumption of Kamolli’s well-founded fear of future persecution by showing changed country conditions in Albania. See Niang v.

Mukasey, 511 F.3d 138, 148-49 (2d Cir.2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The record shows that Kamolli was persecuted by members of the Socialist Party on account of his membership in the Democratic Party, which has since taken control of the Albanian government. Accordingly, substantial evidence, including Kamolli’s testimony and the State Department country report, supports the agency’s determination that Kamolli was not eligible for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 184-88 (2d Cir.2006).

Kamolli contends, however, that he is entitled to “humanitarian asylum,” see Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir.2007), because notwithstanding his failure to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, he has demonstrated “compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to [Albania] arising out of the severity of the past persecution,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(iii)(A).

Without minimizing the effects of beatings suffered by Kamolli in Albania, we conclude that the record does not compel a finding that Kamolli suffered the “long-lasting physical or mental effects of ... persecution” that would warrant humanitarian asylum. Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d at 152; see also Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir.2006) (stating that humanitarian asylum is reserved for “certain rare cases”); Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16,18-19 (BIA 1989). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).