*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60926

Summary Calendar

 

TETYANA MYKOLAYIVNA TSIRKOUNOVA; OLEG VALENTYNOVICH TSIRKOUNOV,

Petitioners,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 223 454

--------------------

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tetyana Mykolayivna Tsirkounova and Oleg Valentynovich Tsirkounov (the petitioners) are

natives and citizens of Ukraine. The petitioners seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) order denying their applicationsfor asylum, withholding ofremoval, and relief under the United

Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment (CAT).
2Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 2004).

3Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir. 1997).

4

Id. at 304; Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).

5Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5thCir. 2004) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 484 (1992)).

6Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).

7Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 2004).

8

Id. at 791.

2

Because the BIA summarily affirmed and adopted the immigration judge’s (IJ) opinion, we

review the IJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions.2 The IJ’s legal conclusions are reviewed de

novo.

3

 The IJ’s factual findings will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.4 Substantial

evidence is lacking only if the evidence is “‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to

find’ the petitioner statutorily eligible for relief.”5

To establish eligibility for asylum, an alien must demonstrate past persecution or a wellfounded fear offuture persecution on account ofrace, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion.6 When seeking asylum based on political opinion, the alien must

show that “her persecutors were motivated, at least in part, by a political opinion held by her or

imputed to her.”7 Whether the persecutors were motivated by the alien’s political opinion is a

question of fact, subject to the substantial evidence standard of review.8

The petitioners based their applications for asylum on the political opinion and activities of

Ms. Tsirkounova, but the petitionersfailed to establish the requisite link between her politicalopinion

and the persecution. First, although Ms. Tsirkounova was told to stop teaching politics in her first
9

See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 2004) (defining persecution as “‘[t]he

infliction ofsuffering or harm, under governmentsanction, upon persons who differin a wayregarded

as offensive (e.g., race, religion, political opinion, etc.), in a manner condemned by civilized

governments. . . .’” (quoting Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583 (1996)) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted)) (emphasis added). 

10See id.

11Cf. Thuri, 380 F.3d at 793 (concluding reasonable factfinders would not have been

compelled, based on the evidence in the record, to conclude that the persecutors were motivated in

any part by the alien’s political opinion); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir.

3

aid classes or she would lose her job, this treatment of Ms. Tsirkounova did not constitute

persecution.9 As the IJ pointed out, in many civilized countries, teaching one’s personal political

views in public school would probably lead to the loss of one’s job.10

Second, although Ms. Tsirkounova suffered much abuse while at a police station, the record

lacks sufficient evidence that her persecut ors were motivated in any part by her political opinion.

Ms. Tsirkounova was arrested after a civilian accused her of involvement in a burglary. Even if the

civilian accuser was motivated by Ms. Tsirkounova’s political opinion, as she suggests, there is no

evidence that the policemenwho abused Ms. Tsirkounova were aware of or motivated byher political

opinion. The policemen never mentioned, inferred or insinuated they knew of Ms. Tsirkounova’s

political opinion or activities. Their questions related only to her whereabouts on the day of the

burglary, and they attempted to force her to confess to the burglary. The t hreatening phone calls

Ms. Tsirkounova received aftershe wasreleased related solely to her treatment while in confinement.

The callers never mentioned or referenced her political opinions or activities. Thus, substantial

evidence supportsthe IJ’s conclusion that Ms. Tsirkounova’s persecutors were not motivated in any

part by her political opinion.11
2002) (same).

12Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 1997).

13See Thuri, 380 F.3d at 793.

14Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).

15Efe, 293 F.3d at 907 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)).

4

With regard to future persecution, the IJ’s determination against a well-founded fear offuture

persecutionissupported bysubstantialevidence. As noted above, Ms. Tsirkounova failed to establish

a link between the feared persecution and her political opinion. In addition, in February of 2000 the

police officially informed Ms. Tsirkounova that she was no longer a burglary suspect. Accordingly,

substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of the petitioners’ applications for asylum.

The level of proofrequired for withholding of deportation is more stringent than for asylum.12

Because the petitioners have failed to establish their eligibility for asylum, they necessarily cannot

succeed on their applications for withholding of removal.13 In addition, although CAT regulations

do not require a connection between torture and political opinion,14 the applicant must stillshow that

“‘more likely than not . . . she would be tortured if removed’” to Ukraine.15 The petitioners have

failed to make the required showing. For these reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.