[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13804

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A087-919-885

VLADA BLISCIUC, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(April 8, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Vlada Blisciuc, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for review of a 

decision affirming the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of 

removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals 

affirmed the findings of an immigration judge that Blisciuc did not suffer past 

persecution and lacks a well-founded fear of future persecution. We deny the 

petition.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Blisciuc was never persecuted 

while living in Moldova. In 2009, Blisciuc attended an anti-communism

demonstration at which three persons were killed, but Blisciuc left before the 

police harmed any demonstrators. And government officials did not contact 

Blisciuc during the month-long interim between the demonstration and her 

departure to the United States. Although Bliciuc’s grandparents disappeared in the 

1940s allegedly because they opposed the Communist Party, “threatening acts or 

harm against other family members does not constitute or imply persecution of the 

petitioner where there has been no threat or harm directed against the petitioner.” 

Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). The record 

does not compel a finding that Blisciuc suffered past persecution. See Mendoza v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Blisciuc lacks a wellfounded fear of future persecution when she returns to Moldova. Blisciuc 

Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

expressed fears of persecution by the Communist Party for her earlier opposition

efforts, but that political party is no longer in control of the government. Nor is 

there any evidence to suggest that its members know of or would target Blisciuc

for her earlier activities.

Blisciuc testified that she feared Roman Caraiman, who employed her in 

Florida as a masseuse and who fled to Moldova before being indicted with Blisciuc 

in federal court for illegal prostitution and human trafficking, but even if Caraiman 

might wish to mistreat Blisciuc because she might testify against him, being a 

victim of criminal activities does not “constitute evidence of persecution based on 

a statutorily protected ground,” Rodriguez, 735 F.3d at 1310. And there is no 

evidence that Caraiman intends to harm Blisciuc. Blisciuc testified that Caraiman 

had called her from Moldova, but he sought to employ her when she returned home

and did not threaten her. Blisciuc also testified that Caraiman had not contacted

Blisciuc after she changed her telephone number nor had he attempted to harm her 

parents, who still live in Moldova. We cannot say that the record compels a finding 

that there is a reasonable possibility that Blisciuc will face persecution when she 

returns home. See Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287. And because Blisciuc failed to 

establish that she was entitled to asylum, she also cannot satisfy the higher 

standard applied to an application for withholding of removal. See Mu Ying Wu v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140, 1157 n.19 (11th Cir. 2014).

Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Blisciuc argues that her fear of future persecution stems from her 

membership in a social group of “massage girls” and because of the pattern or 

practice of the government of persecuting student protestors, but we lack 

jurisdiction to consider these arguments. Although Blisciuc cited caselaw about 

being persecuted based on membership in a social group in her appeal to the 

Board, she failed to identify a specific group to which she belonged or that had 

been the victim of a pattern or practice of persecution. “[A]bsent a cognizable

excuse or exception, we lack jurisdiction” to consider arguments that Blisciuc 

failed to raise before the Board. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 

1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We DENY Blisciuc’s petition for review.

Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 4 of 4