NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0203n.06

No. 13-4482

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

VOLODYMYR RIMOVICH BOLOTOV,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS

BEFORE: KETHLEDGE and DONALD, Circuit Judges; McCALLA, District Judge.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Volodymyr Bolotov came to the United States from 

Ukraine on a tourist visa in 2001. He applied for asylum a year later, and later applied for 

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). During a 

hearing with respect to his applications, Bolotov told an immigration judge that government 

agents in Ukraine had killed his mother, father-in-law, and brother-in-law because Bolotov saw

Ukrainian Secret Service agents burying a headless corpse near a highway. But the IJ denied 

Bolotov’s applications, and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed 

that decision, and Bolotov filed this petition for review. We deny the petition. 

At his hearing before the IJ, Bolotov testified as follows. Bolotov was a law-enforcement 

officer for the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Ukraine. AR at 181. In 1995, while he was on 

 

 The Honorable Jon Phipps McCalla, United States District Judge for the Western District of 

Tennessee, sitting by designation.
No. 13-4482

Bolotov v. Holder

- 2 -

duty, he and three other officers came upon government agents burying a woman’s headless 

body. AR at 184-85. After Bolotov reported the incident to his superiors, they forced him to 

resign and told him to keep quiet. AR at 190. The government placed him under surveillance, 

and he soon began receiving threatening phone calls. AR at 192. About two years later, in 1997, 

somebody murdered Bolotov’s father-in-law. AR at 331. Bolotov thinks the killers were 

government agents who mistook his father-in-law for him, because his father-in-law had 

borrowed Bolotov’s car. AR at 193-96; 231-32. About a year later, Bolotov let his brother-inlaw borrow a car; the brother-in-law was never seen again. AR at 197. Bolotov says that, after 

he asked the police to investigate the disappearance, the police handcuffed him to a chair and 

beat him. AR at 199. Shortly thereafter Bolotov left Ukraine and came to the United States on a 

tourist visa. Bolotov’s wife, daughter, and mother remained behind. The Ukrainian government 

continued to threaten and abuse them. AR at 226. Bolotov’s mother died in January 2002; her 

death certificate says that she died of heart disease, but Bolotov says she died as a result of 

injuries she suffered when police officers searched her house and pushed her to the ground. AR 

at 244.

Bolotov applied for asylum in March 2002. Later that year, the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service served Bolotov with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging 

him with remaining in the United States after his visa expired. Bolotov conceded removability, 

but renewed his request for asylum and also applied for withholding of removal and protection 

under the CAT. In 2011—nine years later—an immigration judge denied Bolotov’s applications 

and ordered him removed. The IJ denied the application for three reasons: first, because Bolotov 

lacked credibility, based on several purported inconsistencies in his story; second, because 

Bolotov failed to produce corroborating evidence; and third, because Bolotov failed to 
No. 13-4482

Bolotov v. Holder

- 3 -

demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of his political opinions. The BIA affirmed the 

IJ’s decision in 2013. This petition for review followed. 

Where, as here, the BIA issues its own opinion, we review the BIA’s decision. Koulibaly 

v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2008). “To the extent the BIA adopted the immigration 

judge’s reasoning, however, [we] also review[] the immigration judge’s decision.” Khalili v. 

Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). We review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial 

evidence. Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 735 F.3d 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, 

we defer to the BIA’s decision so long as the evidence would allow a reasonable fact-finder to 

reach the same conclusion. Koulibaly, 541 F.3d at 619. 

Bolotov first challenges the BIA’s credibility determination. Bolotov filed his 

application before the REAL ID Act took effect, so the BIA’s determination “must be supported 

by specific reasons and must be based upon issues that go to the heart of [his] claim.” 

Abdurakhmanov, 735 F.3d at 345 (internal quotation marks omitted). If inconsistencies in 

Bolotov’s story “cannot be viewed as attempts by [Bolotov] to enhance his claims of 

persecution, they have no bearing on his credibility.” Id. at 345-46. 

Here, the BIA determined that Bolotov lacked credibility based on several purported

inconsistencies. First, the BIA said that Bolotov offered inconsistent accounts of the death of his 

father-in-law, Vladimir. Bolotov testified that Vladimir was shot on September 9 and died four 

days later, on September 13. AR at 193-94. On the asylum application, however, Bolotov had

stated that Vladimir drove to a summer house near Kiev and “[t]he same night he was killed.” 

AR at 359. The BIA believed that the statement that Vladimir “was killed” the night he drove to 

the summer house was inconsistent with Bolotov’s testimony that Vladimir died four days after 

somebody shot him. But the crux of Bolotov’s story—that Vladimir was shot and killed after he 
No. 13-4482

Bolotov v. Holder

- 4 -

borrowed Bolotov’s car—never changed. And whether Vladimir was technically “killed” on the 

day he received a mortal wound or on the day he finally succumbed to it has has no bearing on 

Bolotov’s credibility, especially considering that Bolotov is not a native English speaker and thus

testified through a translator. 

Next, the BIA relied on purported inconsistencies in Bolotov’s description of the incident 

that led to his mother’s death. Bolitov testified that, after he left Ukraine, police officers 

searched his mother’s house and knocked her to the ground, which caused her to lose 

consciousness and die a few days later. AR at 244. In his application Bolotov stated that the 

incident occurred on February 7, 2002. AR at 361. In his testimony, however, Bolotov said the 

incident occurred on January 6. AR at 226. A death certificate lists his mother’s date of death as 

January 8, 2002, AR at 328. According to the BIA, the inconsistent dates, and the death 

certificate’s mention of heart disease, make Bolotov’s story unbelievable. We disagree: the 

inconsistent dates are a minor discrepancy, which cannot be seen as attempts to exaggerate 

Bolotov’s account of how his mother died. See Abdurakhmanov, 735 F.3d at 345-46. Indeed, 

his account of how she died remained consistent throughout. Nor does the death certificate’s 

stated cause of death support the BIA’s credibility determination: a coroner’s determination that 

Bolotov’s mother died of a heart attack is consistent with Bolotov’s testimony that a few days 

earlier the police had threatened her and knocked her to the ground.

Finally, the IJ said that Bolotov made inconsistent statements about the investigation into 

the disappearance of his brother-in-law, Sergei. Bolotov testified that the police did not 

investigate the disappearance, AR at 197, but in his application he included a newspaper clipping 

which stated that the Department of Internal Affairs was searching for Sergei. AR 374. Bolotov 

explained this purported discrepancy during his hearing: he testified that the clipping was an ad 
No. 13-4482

Bolotov v. Holder

- 5 -

placed by Sergei’s family shortly after they notified the Department that he was missing. AR at 

229. Thus, all the newspaper clipping shows is that Sergei disappeared; it says nothing about 

whether the Ukrainian authorities conducted a meaningful investigation. 

In short, none of the purported inconsistencies relied on by the BIA “go to the heart of” 

Bolotov’s application for asylum; and indeed several are not even inconsistencies. Id. at 345 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, this record suggests that the IJ sought out minor 

discrepancies to buttress his decision to deny Bolotov’s application. Thus, the record lacks 

substantial evidence to support the BIA’s credibility determination. 

Still, we must deny Bolotov’s petition if the BIA’s decision can be upheld on the 

alternative ground that Bolotov failed to provide corroborating evidence to support his story. See 

Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004). “The absence of [] corroborating 

evidence can lead to a finding that an applicant has failed to meet her burden of proof” in an 

asylum application, so long as “it is reasonable to expect corroborating evidence.” Id. 

Here, almost nothing in the record—other than Bolotov’s testimony—supports his story. 

And it was reasonable for the BIA to expect corroborating evidence to support Bolotov’s 

allegations of constant harassment over a period of several years. Bolotov testified that he was 

still in contact with his wife, but he failed to offer an affidavit or letter from her that corroborated 

any part of his story. AR at 227. He further testified that he possessed documentation of the 

injuries he suffered when the police beat him, and that he received a letter from his mother’s 

neighbor which described the incident that caused her death. AR at 236, 246. But Bolotov 

produced none of these documents in support of his application. Thus, by Bolotov’s own 

admission, he could have provided corroborating evidence, but he failed to do so. Given that 
No. 13-4482

Bolotov v. Holder

- 6 -

failure, a reasonable factfinder could agree with the BIA’s finding that Bolotov failed to provide 

corroborating evidence, and therefore failed to meet his burden of proof.

The petition for review is denied.