Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01586/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01586-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Jaan Ploom
Petitioner
Svetlana Ploom
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1586

___________

Svetlana Ploom; Jaan Ploom, *

*

Petitioners, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 4, 2005

Filed: March 10, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Svetlana Ploom and her husband Jaan Ploom, natives of Estonia, petition for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

The Plooms sought asylum on the basis of Svetlana’s Russian ethnicity,

alleging that in 1990 or 1991 there was a food shortage in Estonia and Svetlana was

told that she should not receive a food-ration card because she was going to be

thrown out of Estonia and there was not enough food even for Estonians. Jaan was

Appellate Case: 04-1586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877060 
-2-

able to obtain food for them from other sources and Svetlana received her food-ration

card two or three weeks later. Because Svetlana did not speak Estonian, she was

scratched and pushed by another child at age 7 and was told by the child’s mother to

get out of Estonia; Svetlana was once pushed by gang members, and was fired from

her job as a food inspector; and she was threatened by a doctor that, unless she

learned Estonian, he would not provide her medical treatment again. Jaan was

demoted from a supervisory position at a bus company and his wages were reduced

after his boss learned that he had married an ethnic Russian. The Plooms entered the

United States in 1991 and feared returning to Estonia because they did not know

Estonian and consequently they were unsure whether they would be able to find

employment or housing. 

The IJ denied asylum because the Plooms’ allegations did not amount to

persecution and any problems they might face in returning to Estonia would be

caused by their lack of knowledge of the Estonian language, which was not

persecution. The BIA dismissed the Plooms’ ensuing appeal, agreeing with the IJ that

the Plooms’ experiences did not rise to the level of persecution, and they also had not

established eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. The Plooms now

argue that the BIA’s decision should be vacated because they established both past

persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Menendez-Donis v.

Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review);

Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 2002) (persecution is infliction

or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of

protected ground); Fisher v. INS, 291 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir. 2002) (harassment by

private citizens does not rise to level of persecution); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936

(9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats must be so menacing as to cause significant actual

suffering or harm to constitute past persecution); Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598

Appellate Case: 04-1586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877060 
-3-

(8th Cir. 1997) (isolated acts of violence do not compel finding of persecution; fears

of economic hardship or lack of opportunity do not establish well-founded fear of

persecution); Minwalla v. INS, 706 F.2d 831, 835 (8th Cir. 1983) (persecution

requires a threat to life or freedom; “economic detriment is not sufficient”).

Thus, the Plooms’ claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well,

see Regalado-Garcia, 305 F.3d at 788 (withholding-of-removal standard is more

rigorous than asylum standard), and we see no basis in the record for relief under the

CAT, see Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 780-82 (8th Cir. 2004)

(requirements for CAT relief). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. The Plooms moved for a stay of removal

before their voluntary-departure period expired, and we therefore deem this court’s

grant of their unopposed motion to include a stay of their voluntary-departure period

as well. See Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 606, 616 (8th Cir. 2004).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1586 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877060