2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-15-2006 

# S olov yeva v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2576

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S o lo v yeva v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 592. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/592The Honorable Euge ne E. Siler, Jr., C ircuit Judg e, United States Court of Appe als for the * Six th Circuit, sitting by

designation. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N os . 05- 2576 and 05- 2577
I R I N A SO L O V Y E V A and S T ANI S L OV S OL OVYE VA, P et i t i on ers , v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n t.
P E T I T I ON F OR RE VI E W OF A DE CI S I ON OF THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS A gencyN os . A 95 479 071 and A 95 479 072
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 28, 2006 B efore: B A R R Y , V A N A N T W E R P E N , and S ILE R , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t15, 2006)

____ OP I NI ON

____2

S I L E R , C i r cui tJ udge I r i na and St ani s l ov Sol ovy eva, m ot herand s on, pet it ion this c our tfora r evi ew of a B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) or deraff i r m i ng a pr i or or der of an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng t hei rcl ai m s for as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval
. W e w i l l deny t he pet i t i on f o rr e v i e w. Pet i t i oner s ar e ethni c R us s i an ci t i zens of K az ak h s t an. T heyar r i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es on non- i m m i gr an t v isas i n 2001, w hi ch theyover s t ay ed. D ur i ng j oi ntr emoval pr o ce edi ngs under8 U
. S. C
. § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) , t heyconce ded r emovabi l i t ybutappl i ed for
as y l um under8 U
. S. C
. § 1101 et s eq . , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval under8 U
. S. C
. § 1231 et s eq ., and forpr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns t T or tur e (“ C A T ”) , 8 C
. F. R
. § 208. 16 et s eq ., o n the ba sis o f t h eir statu s as m em b ers of an ethn ic m ino ri ty . T h e IJ fo u n d p arts of Iri n a’s t es t i m onyi ncr edi bl e, t hatSt ani s l ov had notdemonst r at ed pas tper s ecut i on, and t hatnei t her had demonstr at ed a w el l
- founded f earorpr obabi l i t yof futur e per s ecut i on. P et i t i on ers app eal on l y t he denial of t heir asy l um and w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al cl ai m s. W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , uphol di ng i t“unl es s t he evi dence not onl ys uppor t s a contr ar yconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. H er e, t he IJ ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat St ani s l ov had notbeen pe r s ecut ed i n t he p ast an d that n eit h er Pe ti ti o n er ha d d em o n str ated a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar or li k eli h o o d o f f u ture per s ecut i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence
. T o pr evai l on a cl ai m foras y l um , an appl i canthas t o demonst r at e an i nabi l i t yor3

unw i l l i ngnes s t o r etur n t o one’ s countr y “bec aus e of per s ecut i on or a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup
o r p o litic a l o p in io n . . . .” Id
. at482. T o pr evai l on a cl ai m forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval , t he ap p li cantm us tes t abl i s h t hathe more l i kel yt han notw i l l be per s ecut ed i n t he countr yof depor t at i on beca us e of hi s “r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par ti cu lar s oci al gr oup or pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F
. 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. An
a p p lica n t w h o f

a ils to p ro v e th a t h e h a s a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n n e c e ss a rily f a ils to p ro v e th e lik e lih o o d o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . S e e Zu b e d a v . A s h c r o ft, 333 F. 3d 463, 469 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T o est abli sh el i gibi l i t yfor asy l um on t he basi s of pa stpersecut i on , an ap pli cant m ust
s how ( 1) one or m or e i nci dent s t hat r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) w hi ch o ccurr ed beca us e of hi s m ember s hi p i n a stat ut or i l y - pr ot ect ed cl as s ; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed byt he g o v e rn m e n t o r b yf

o rc e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is e ith e r u n a b le o r u n w illin g to c o n tr o l. See A b d u lr a h m a n v . A s h c r o ft, 330 F. 3d 587, 592 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. H er e, t he I J cor r ect l yfound t hat St ani s l ov’ s i s o l at ed bea t i ng bya s m al l gr oup of K aza kh chi l dr en, and t he har as s m ent al l egedl ys uffe r ed byhi s fami l y t her eaf t er , di d notamount t o pas tper s ecut i on. A ct i ons t hat rise to th e lev e l o f

p e rse c u tio n in c lu d e “ th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic
r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e t hat t hey cons t i tut e a t hr eat t o l i fe or fr eedom. ” Fa tin v . IN S , 12 F. 3d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 3 )
. S t a n i s l o v ’ s b e a t i n g wa s n o tl i f e - t h r e a t e n i n g , a s t h e r e c o r d s h o ws t hathe w as abl e t o l eave t he h o sp it al and r etur n t o t he ca r e of hi s par ent s j us thour s aft erThis conclusion also pre cludes the need for us to addre ss the IJ ’s adverse c redibility finding 1 as to Irina’s pa st persec ution. Se eKay e mb ev . A sh c ro ft , 334 F.3d 231, 235 (3d C ir. 2003) (a ffirming BIA’s d eter

mination that country

repor ts provided substantial evidenc e of la ck of probability of future persec ution, despite the presumption cre ated by evidenc e of pa st persecution). 4 tr ea tm en t. M o reo v er, th e re co rd sh o w s tha t th e stu d en ts r e s p o n s ib le f o r his b ea ti n g w ere i nves t i gat ed and s entt o j uveni l e det ent i on. T he I J al s o found t hatPet i t i oner s fai l ed t o demonst r at e a w el l
- founded fearof, or l i kel i hood of, futur e per s ecut i on bas ed upon the countr yr epor t s fr om t he U
. S. D epar t m ent
o f S ta te , w h ic h a re typ ic a lly re f e re n c e d in c a s e s s u c h a s th is
. S e e , e.g ., L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W h ile the re p o rts d id d isc u ss p re f e re n tial tre a tm e n t f

o r e th n ic K a z a k h s f

o r th e h ig h e st lev e l g o v e rn m e n t p o sitio n s, th e re w e re n o o th e r re p o rts o f e c o n o m ic di s cr i m i nat i on. T he re por t s al s o not ed hei ght ened nat i onal i s m , but t her e w er e no di s cus s i ons of ext ra- j ud i ci al kil l i ng s, kidnapp i ng s, viol ence o r s y st em at i c harassm ent of et hn i c R ussi ans. M or eover , Pet i t i oner s conce ded t hat t hei r R us s i an r el at i ves , i ncl udi ng I r i na’ s hus band and p a re n ts, still l iv e in K a z a k h sta n a n d h a v e n o t su f f e r e d il l tre a tm e n t. T h e re f o re , n o th in g in th e re c o rd c o m p e ls a re s u lt d if f e re n t f ro m th e IJ ’s
. S e e A b d ill e , 242 F. 3d at483- 84. 1 Pe t i t i o n DEN I ED