Case ID: f-appx_176/html/0426-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Evgeny AKSENOV, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 05-2116.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 31, 2006.
    Decided April 20, 2006.
    Evgeny Aksenov, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Eric Warren Marsteller, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Evgeny Aksenov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s oral decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). We agree with the Board that Aksenov failed to show entitlement to asylum or withholding from removal. He failed to show the past events were as a result of his membership in a particular social group. We also agree with the Board that Aksenov failed to show that more likely than not he will face torture if he returns to Russia, as it is defined by the regulation. See 8 C.F.R. 1208.18(a)(1) (2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.