
    Renato SULOLLARI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2785-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 5, 2012.
    Charles Christophe, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Carl H. McIntyre; Assistant Director, Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Renato Sulollari, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a June 16, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the May 18, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Helen Siehel, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Renato Sulollari No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 16, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Because the BIA declined to address the IJ’s credibility determination and found that even assuming Sulollari’s credibility, the government had demonstrated a fundamental change in country conditions, we address only the agency’s dispositive future persecution finding. See Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir.2008) (assuming credibility when the BIA does not affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility determination); see also Yang, 426 F.3d at 522. We conclude that the agency reasonably found that Sulollari failed to demonstrate that he would suffer any harm if returned to Albania. See Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179,187 (2d Cir.2006).

The government may rebut a finding of past persecution, and the resulting presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, by showing a fundamental change in conditions in the country where the petitioner suffered past persecution such that the applicant’s fear of persecution is no longer well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); Niang v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir.2007). Sulollari’s application is based on his membership in the Democratic Party (“DP”) and his fear of harm at the hands of members of the Socialist Party (“SP”), who were in control of the local and national government of Albania when Sulollari applied for asylum in 2002. Given the fundamental change in Albania—namely the DP’s 2005 takeover of the government— Sulollari had the burden to establish that he has a well-founded fear of harm at the hands of the government, now controlled by the DP. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see also Hoxhallari 468 F.3d at 187-88 (concluding that alien’s fear of future persecution based on his affiliation with the DP was not well-founded in light of the “fundamental change in the political structure and government of Albania”). Sulollari argues that he fears harm if returned to Albania due to local police corruption and his previous DP activities, but he has not identified any evidence that the local police force is SP-aligned or that DP activists have been persecuted by the local police. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Moreover, Sulollari failed to demonstrate that he could not relocate to a DP-controlled area; the agency reasonably found DP-led government controls the security apparatus throughout Albania. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(F).

Because the agency reasonably found that there had been a fundamental change in Albania and that Sulollari had not otherwise shown a well-founded fear of harm, the agency did not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,156 (2d Cir.2006).

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).  