## Facts

- Rudina Demiraj and her minor son, Rediol, are Albanian nationals who entered the United States without inspection in October 2000.
- Rudina sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, initially claiming fear of harm in Albania tied to her family’s political opposition.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief in 2002; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal in 2003.
- In 2004, the BIA reopened proceedings based on changed circumstances after Rudina’s husband, Edmond, was shot in Albania by Bill Bedini, an Albanian wanted in the United States for human smuggling; Edmond had been identified as a material witness in a U.S. prosecution.
- In reopened proceedings, Rudina asserted a new basis for relief: Bedini and associates had initiated a retaliatory “blood feud” against Edmond’s family due to Edmond’s cooperation with U.S. authorities, placing Rudina and her son at risk if returned.
- Rudina submitted evidence that Bedini allegedly kidnapped two of Edmond’s nieces and trafficked them to Italy before they escaped.
- The IJ and BIA again denied asylum, withholding, and CAT protection, finding no required nexus between the feared harm and a protected ground, including membership in a particular social group.

## Issues

1. Whether threatened harm from a criminal retaliating against a cooperating witness constitutes persecution “on account of” membership in a particular social group (such as the witness’s family) for asylum and withholding of removal.
2. Whether the petitioners showed it was more likely than not they would be tortured in Albania with the consent or acquiescence of a public official for CAT protection.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review and left in place the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Substantial evidence supported the agency finding that Bedini’s motive was personal retaliation for Edmond’s cooperation, not persecution on account of a protected ground.
- The record did not compel a conclusion that Albanian officials would consent to or acquiesce in torture, defeating the CAT claim.

## Legal Principles

- Asylum and withholding require proof that feared harm is “on account of” a protected ground; retaliation driven by a personal vendetta does not satisfy the nexus requirement.
- A family may be a cognizable “particular social group,” but the applicant must still prove the persecutor targets the applicant because of that family membership rather than for personal revenge against a specific individual.
- On petition for review, agency fact findings are upheld under the substantial-evidence standard unless the record compels a contrary conclusion.
- CAT protection requires a showing that torture is more likely than not and would occur with government consent or acquiescence (including willful blindness); risk of private violence alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that threats arising from a criminal’s retaliatory feud against a cooperating witness and his relatives reflected personal revenge rather than persecution tied to a protected ground, and that the evidence did not compel a finding of likely torture with government acquiescence.


Demiraj v. Holder, 631 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 2011)