MARJETA SILO and JOVAN SILO v. John Ashcroft

The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting
*
by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0714n.06
Filed: October 4, 2006
03-4546/05-4330
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARJETA SILO and JOVAN SILO,
Petitioners,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before: NORRIS and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District*
Judge.
PER CURIAM. The petitioners, Marjeta and Jovan Silo, seek review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed a ruling by an immigration judge denying
asylum and withholding of removal, but granting their request for voluntary departure. The
Silos claim to have suffered past political persecution in Albania based on political beliefs
and ethnic identity. Specifically, Marjeta Silo claims that she was persecuted on the
ground of her opposition to the Albanian government’s laws and social norms targeting
women. She testified in the immigration court that she had lost her job as a teacher due
to speaking out to students and fellow teachers in favor of equal rights for women. Jovan

-- 1 of 3 --

03-4546
Silo v. Ashcroft
- 2 -
Silo is part Serb and asserts that, due to his ethnic identity and the fact that he spoke out
in one Democratic Party meeting, he has suffered persecution.
Because the petitioners had little or no verified documentation to support their
claims, the immigration judge noted that credibility was of “extreme importance” to the
outcome of their application for relief. But the immigration judge also expressed significant
reservations about the petitioners’ credibility, especially that of Jovan Silo. The judge
ultimately held, as a matter of law, that Marjeta Silo’s claim “d[id] not rise to the level of
persecution as it is cognizable on any of the enumerated grounds” of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and that Jovan Silo had failed to establish past persecution based on his
political beliefs.
The petitioners appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the Board of
Immigration Appeals, which affirmed without an opinion, and subsequently filed a petition
for review in this court. Following oral argument in July 2005, we held the case in
abeyance, relying on the petitioners’ stated intention to file a motion to reopen with the
Board. Apparently, the ensuing motion to reopen was untimely, but the Board nevertheless
considered the merits and denied the motion, on the ground that the petitioners had failed
to show that changed conditions in Albania were material to their case.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record
to support the immigration judge’s decision. Even if the judge had credited all of the

-- 2 of 3 --

03-4546
Silo v. Ashcroft
- 3 -
testimony, the evidence would not have established the existence of past persecution or
a basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution to the extent required for purposes of
granting asylum. Moreover, there is no merit to the petitioners’ claim that the Board of
Immigration Appeals initially denied them the right to review by affirming the decision of the
immigration judge without an opinion. See Dekko v. INS, 351 F.3d 7171 (6th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we agree with the Board’s determination that there are no grounds to permit
reopening.
For the reasons set out above, we deny the petitions for review and AFFIRM the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

-- 3 of 3 --