[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12706

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A087-355-649

ANDRIAN ANTON MARIN,

 Petitioner,

versus

US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent.

___________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

____________________________

(April 1, 2013)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Andrian Marin, a citizen of Moldova, seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his 

Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

application for asylum.1 Mr. Marin initially sought relief in 2008 based on his 

contention that he was persecuted because of an imputed political opinion and an 

imputed ethnic status. 

Mr. Marin was born in Moldova, but lived in Transnistria, a separatist region

of Moldova, for several years. During the removal proceedings, Mr. Marin testified 

that he was ridiculed in Transnistria because he was from Moldova, and that in 

Moldova, he was ridiculed because he had developed a Russian accent, which led 

Moldovans to perceive him as a Transnistrian. He presented evidence of the 

hostilities between Moldovans and Transnistrians and described how he was 

frequently mocked and harassed because of his accent and ethnicity. Although the 

IJ found Mr. Marin to be a credible witness, he ultimately denied relief after 

concluding that the incidents described by Mr. Marin did not constitute past 

persecution. The IJ also concluded that Mr. Marin failed to show a well-founded 

fear of future persecution. The BIA dismissed Mr. Marin’s appeal after 

independently determining that he had not suffered past persecution and adopting

the IJ’s conclusions regarding future persecution. 

On appeal, Mr. Marin contends that the BIA erred in failing to adequately 

consider the aggregate effects of a “lifetime of marginalization, harassment, and 

 1 The Immigration Judge also denied Mr. Marin’s request for withholding of removal and 

relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18. Mr. Marin does not 

challenge the denial of CAT relief on appeal.

Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

discrimination.” He also asserts that he established a well-founded fear of future 

persecution based on the violence that still exists in the region and the tension 

between Moldovans and Transnistrians.

2 After review, we disagree and deny the 

petition. 

We review the BIA’s decision, and we must also examine the IJ’s decision 

to the extent that it was expressly adopted by the BIA. See Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 547 F.3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir. 2008). Findings of fact will not be disturbed 

if there is substantial evidence to support them, see id., and we give considerable

deference to such findings, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

agency’s decision. See Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(en banc).

The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security may grant asylum 

to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A

“refugee” is defined as:

[A]ny person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality 

or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any 

country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is 

unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail 

himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, 

 2 To the extent that Mr. Marin seeks review of the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal, 

we do not have jurisdiction over that claim because he did not raise it in his notice of appeal to

the BIA, see Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge, ¶ 6 [A.R. at 63–64] 

(assigning error to the IJ’s finding on past and future persecution), and his brief before the BIA 

offered no substantive argument on the issue. See Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1367 

(11th Cir. 2011).

Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion . . . . 

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To prove past persecution, an asylum applicant must 

show that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Silva v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006). Persecution has been defined as 

“an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society 

regards as offensive [and] requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal 

harassment or intimidation, unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction 

of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty.” Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 

1355 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Minor physical abuse, 

for example, does not amount to persecution. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

577 F.3d 1341, 1353 (11th Cir. 2009). 

We find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Mr. Marin suffered nothing 

more than discrimination and harassment which—though regrettable—do not 

amount to past persecution. The record indicates that Mr. Marin was kicked and 

thrown in a canal by his fellow students, but these isolated incidents of minor 

physical abuse do not rise to the level of persecution. Even in the aggregate, the 

incidents described by Mr. Marin do not compel the conclusion that he suffered 

past persecution. See Silva, 448 F.3d at 1239 (“[O]nly in a rare case does the 

record compel the conclusion that an applicant for asylum suffered past 

persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”). 

Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Similarly, Mr. Marin failed to show a well-founded fear of future 

persecution. Generalized conditions in a country are insufficient to establish 

persecution. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 n.7 (11th Cir. 

2005). Although the record indicates general civil unrest in the region, Mr. Marin 

has not shown specific facts indicating that he will be persecuted in Moldova 

because of his Russian accent or any perceived affiliation with Transnistria. 

Accordingly, we deny Mr. Marin’s petition for review. 

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 5 of 5