P u rsuan t t o 5th C i r. R
. 47. 5, t h e court h as determ i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c u m s t a n c e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 t h Cir . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60700 Su m m ar y Cal endar
S E R G E YS E M E O V IC H S V IS T U N ; TA T YA N AA L E XA N D R O V N AS V IS T U N , P et i t i on ers

v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTOR N EY GE N ERA L, R esp on d en t.
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 98 602 423

B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S ergey S em en ovi ch S vi st u n , a na t ive an d cit i zen of R u ssi a, petit i on s f or r e vi e w o f

t he Boa r d of

I m m i gr at i o n A ppe al s ’ s ( BI A) di s m i s s alof hi s a ppe alo f

t he Im m i grati on Ju dg e’ s order den yi n g h i s ap pl i cat i on s f or asyl u m , w i t h h ol di n g of
re m o va l , an d rel i ef

un der t h e C on ven t i on A gainstT ort u re ( C A T )
. Svis t u n ’ s w i fe, T atyan a A l exan drovn a S vi st u n , al so a n ative an d c i t i zen of R u ssi a, seeks reli ef as a derivative ben ef i ci ary of her hu sban d’ s app l i cat i on s. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D November

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60700

2 T h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws t h e I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e a n dB IA’ s r u l i n g s o f l a w de no vo a n dth e irfin d i n g s o f fa c t fo rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Zh u v. G on zales , 493 F. 3d 5 8 8 , 5 9 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). U n d e rt h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a r d , re v e r s a l is i m proper u n l ess t h i s c ou rtdeci des “ n otonl y t h at th e evi den ce s u p ports a contrary c on cl u si on , bu tal so th at th e evi den ce compels i t. ” Ch en v. G on zales , 4 7 0 F .3d1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion a n dcita tion om itted ). The I m m i grat i o n J udg e a nd BIA c o nc l ude d thatSv i s t un’ s a s ylum appl i c at i on w as s t at ut ori l y b ar r ed as unt i m ely. To beeli gibl e f oras yl um , an al i en m u stf

i l e an app l i cat i on w i t h i n one yea r of h i s l atestarrival i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates, 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1158 ( a) ( 2) ( B ) , w h i ch S vi st u n di d n otdo. H o w e v e r, t h i s oneye arf i l i ng de ad l i ne m ayb e e xc us e d if t he ali e n s ho w s , “ t o t he s at i s fac t i o n o f t he A tt o r n e yG e n e r a l,” th a t t h e r e a r e “c h a n g e dcir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h m a te r ia lly af fectt h e app l i can t ’ s eli gibi l i t y f or asyl u m or extr aordi n ary circum st an ces r e la tin g to th e d e la y in filin g a n a p p lic a tio n w ith in th e [o n e - y e a r ] p e r io d .” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158( a) ( 2) (D )
. A f t ert he pas sa ge of

t he R E A L ID A c t , t hi s c our thas j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e vi e w ade t e r m i nat i o n o f t i m e l i ne s s t hat tu r ns o n a constit u t i on alcl ai m or qu e stio n o f l aw , bu tl acks j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew d e te r m in a tio n s o f tim e lin e s s th a ta r e b a s e do n fin d in g s o f fa c t. Zhu , 493 F. 3d
a t 5 9 4

– 9 5 ; Nak i m bugw e v. G on zales , 475 F. 3d 281, 284 ( 5t h C i r . 2007)
. S v is tu n a r g u e s th a t t h e tim e lin e s s o f h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n is re v ie w a b le be c aus e iti nvo lve s acon st i t u t i onalc l ai m a nd aq ue s t i o n o f l aw. As t o t he
c o ns t i t ut i o nalc l ai m , he c o nt e nds t hatt he I m m i gr at i o n J udg e v i o l at e d hi s due process ri gh t s by fai l in gto deter m i n e w h et h er ext raordi n ary circum st an ces w ar r ant e d a n e xc e pt i o n t o t he o ne - ye arde ad l i ne . To t he c o nt r ary, w e c o nc l ude th a t t h e Im m ig r a tio n J u d g e co n s id e r e da n dreje c te dS v is tu n ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t h is
u n successf

u latt em pt t o ext en d h i s l egal st atus sup ported a f i n di n g of extr aordi n ary circum st an ces overcom i n g t h e stat u t ory b ar. B ecau se th e di st ri ct
c o u r t a d d r e s s e dth e e x c e p tio n , th e r e is n o b a s is fo r S v is tu n ’ s d u e p r o c e s s cla im
. Svi st un f

urtheras se r t s t hatt he I m m i gr ati on Judge appl i ed an i nco r r ec tl egalN o. 08- 60700

3 s ta n d a r dto th e ch a n g e dcir c u m s ta n c e s d e te r m in a tio n , b yre q u ir in gh im to file h i s app l i cat i on w i t h i n a reasonab l e t i m e of di scoveri n g t h e chan ged
c i r c um s t anc e s , a nd s ugg e s t i ng s i x m o nt hs a s ar eason able t i m e . W e c o nc l ude th a t th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e a p p lie dt h e c o r r e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d , a n dth a t, a s in Zh u , t he I m m i gr at i on Judge’ s r ej ec t i on o f S vi st un’ s ar gum ent s “ w as based on an
e va l uat i o n o f

t he fac t s a nd c i r c um s t anc e s of [hi s ] ca s e , ” and t he r e f o r e t hatw e “ do
n ot h a ve j u ri sd i cti on to rev i ew th e I m m i gr a ti on J u d ge ’ s d eterm i n a ti on . ” S ee 493 F. 3d at596. S vi st u n al so c h al l en ges t h e rej ect i on of hi s c l ai m f

or w i t h h ol di n g of
rem ov a l
. “T o be el i gible for w i th h oldin g of rem ov a l , an ali en m u st de m on strate
an o bj e c tiv e‘c l e a rp r o babil i t y’o f pe r s e c ut i o n in th e p r o p o s e dco u n tr yo f r e m o v a l.” Maj dv. G on zales , 4 4 6 F .3d5 9 0 , 5 9 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (cita tion om itted ). P ersec u t i on ha s been d e f i n ed as “[t] h e i n f

l i ct i on of

suf f eri n g or harm , un der gov er n m en ts anct i on, upon per so ns w ho dif feri n a w ay r egar ded as of fens ive

. . . i n a m a n n er co n d em n e d b ycivil i ze dgo ve rn m en ts. ” Zh a o v . G o n za le s , 404 F
. 3d295 , 307 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on an d ci t ati on om i t t ed). A n al i en m ay p rove t h e obj ect ivi t y of hi s persec u t i on cl ai m by show i n g t h at th ere i s a

“ pa t t ern or pract i ce” of persecu t i on of

a group of

persons i n w h i ch h e i s a m e m b e ro n a c c o u n t o f a n e n u m e r a te dgr o u n d
. I d. S vi st u n argu es th at iti s m o re lik e ly tha n not th at he w i l lbe persecuted if h e re tu r n s to R u s s ia
. H e a r g u e s th a t h e h a s aw e ll fo u n d e d fe a r , b e c a u s e in h is fo r m e rp r o fe s s io n a l life inR u s s i a , h e d is c lo s e dto p r iv a te p a r tie s e c o n o m ic i n form a ti on tha t ha s si n ce b eco m e cl a ssif i ed , a n doth er ind ivid u a l s d ea l i n g w i th
c l as s i f i e d a nd n e w l y- c l as s i f i e d i nf o r m at i o n i n Rus s i a hav e b e e n pe r s ecut e d. W h ile S v is tu n p o in ts to e v id e n c e th a t so m e in d iv id u a ls in s o m e w h a t c o m p a r a b le circum st an ces t o hi s hav e been su bj ect ed t o p ersec u t i on in R u ssi a, the evidence d o e s n o t rise to th e lev e l of c o mp e l l i ng a c o nc l us i o n c o nt r ary t o t hato f t he Im m ig r a tio n J u d g e a n dB IA
. Se eChe n, 4 7 0 F .3 da t 1 1 3 4 ; Ma jd , 446 F. 3d at595. W e accor di n gl y f

i n d n o revers ibl e err or.N o. 08- 60700

4 S vistu n li k ew i se fail s to su rm ou n t th e on e r o u s s tan d a rdof rev i ew w i th respectt o hi s c l ai m un der t h e C on ven t i on A gainstT ort u re. Tor eceive protec t i on und ert he C A T, Svi st un h ad t o es t abl i sh t hatitw as “ m or e likely t han not” t hat h e w o u ld b e to r tu r e d if r e m o v e d to h is h o m e co u n tr y . Efe v
. A sh cr oft , 293 F. 3d 89 9, 9 07 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. Sv i s t un h as no ta s s e r t e d thathe w as t o r t ur e d i n t he p a s t, a n dh a s n o t p r o v id e de v id e n c e t h a t w o u ldc o m p e l t h e c o n c lu s io n th a t itis
m ore li kely th an not th at h e w i l lb e su bj ect ed t o tort u re ba sed on hi s act ivi t i es i n pr i o re m pl o ym e nto rf o ra ny o t he rr e as o n. Fi nall y, M r s . Svi s t un j o i ne d i n he rhus ba nd’ s a ppli c at i o n f o rw i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va l , b utdi d notf i l e an i nde pe nde ntappli c at i o n oras s e r tan i nde pe nde nt bas i s f orobt ai ni ng t hatreli ef
. T he s t at ut e a ut hor i zi ng w i t hhol di ng of r em oval d o e s n o t a ffo r d d e r iv a tiv e r e lie f to m e m b e r s o f th e a lie n ’ s fa m ilyu n le s s th e r e is
a n in d e p e n d e n tg r o u n dfo rg r a n tin gth e fa m ilym e m b e rs u c h re lie f. A r if v. Mu ka sey , 509 F
. 3d677 , 681 –82 ( 5 th C ir. 200 7)
. B ecau se M rs. Sv i st u n di d n ot f i l e a n i ndependentappl i c at i on f orw i t hhol di ng of

r em ovaln or a sse r tan in d e p e n d e n t b a s is fo ro b ta in in gs u c h re l i e f, h e ra p p lic a tio n fo rw ith h o ld in gis d e n ie d
. Se ei d. T h e j o i n tp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED
.