2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-25-2006 

# M ar t iro sov v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2092

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ar t ir os ov v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1717. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1717* * H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal

T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 2092 KAR E N M AR T I RO S OV,

Pet i t i oner v. *A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S , A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent *Su bs t i tut e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 c , F. R. A . P. O n A ppeal fr om an O r derent er ed by T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls N o. A 95- 462- 706 Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember30, 2005 B efore: A L ITO and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es, and R E ST A N I , ** C hi ef J udge ( O pi ni on fi l ed J anuary25, 2006 )

OP I NI ON2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge K ar en M art i r os ov pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m i ng w i thoutopi ni on the deni al byan i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) of M art i r os ov’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and hi s r eques tfor p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e U n ited N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re a n d O th e r C ru e l, I nhum an, orD egr adi ng T r eatm entorPuni s hm ent( “C A T ”) . T he I J concl uded that M art i r os ov had nots us t ai ned hi s bur den of pr ovi ng pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n a s re q u ir e d b yth e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) , o rt o r tu r e a s d e f i n e d i n th e CA T . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, w e denythe pet i t i on. I. F ac ts an d P roc ed u ral H ist o ry B e c a u s e w e w ri te f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e o n ly b ri e f ly re c o u n t th e re le v a n t f a c ts . M a rtiro so v , in h is m id -3 0 s, is f ro m A z e rb a ijan a n d is c u rre n tlya c iti z e n o f U k ra in e . H e is e th n ica llyA rm e n ian a n d h is w if e , w h o m h e m a rrie d in 2 0 0 0 , is h a lf A rm e n ian a n d h a lf A zerbai j ani . M art i r os ov ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i th a non- i m m i gr antvi s a on M ay15, 2 0 0 1 , wh i c h h e o v e r s t a y e d . I n M a y2 0 0 2 h e f i l e d wi th th e I NS a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, an d p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T . H e a m e n d e d th is a p p lica tio n in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 3 to in c lu d e c laim s o f p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n n a tio n a l o rig in a n d m e m b e rsh ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p .3

A ccor di ng t o M art i r os ov’ s amended as y l um appl i cat i on, he and hi s fami l yl eft A zerbai j an i n 1989 and ent er ed U kr ai ne as r efuge es . T heys ett l ed i n the ea s t ern ci tyof D onet s k, w hi ch has a l ar ge A r m eni an popul at i on. H e r ecount s num er ous al l eged a ct s of d is c ri m in a tio n , h a ra s s m e n t, a n d v io le n c e d ir e c te d a t h im a n d h is f a m ily in U k ra in e . M art i r os ov s t at es thatU kr ai ni ans us ed ethni c s l ur s t o r efe rt o hi m and hi s fami l y , and that h is f a th e r a n d b ro th e r w e re b e a ten in 1 9 9 2 . H is b ro th e r d ied in 1 9 9 6 f ro m a b lo o d c lo t, w h ich M a rtiro so v a ttribu tes to th is b e a tin g . H e a lso a lleg e s th a t h e w a s re p e a ted ly har as s ed bythe pol i ce a nd t aken i nt o cus t ody“atl eas t27 t i m es , ” dur i ng w hi ch the pol i ce w o u ld b e a t h im , d e n yh im f o o d , w a ter , an d th e u se o f a to ilet, an d e x to rt m o n e yf ro m h is fami l yt o s ecur e hi s r el eas e. T heyw oul d then, acc or di ng t o M art i r os ov, for ce hi m t o s i gn a form st at i ng that he had been treat ed h um anelyand had no com plai nts . I n 1998 M art i r os ov and hi s fi ancé e opene d a bake ryi n D onet s k. H e al l eges he w a s f o rc e d to p a ya h ig h e r lice n sin g f e e th a n w a s n o rm a llyc h a rg e d in o rd e r to o p e n th is bus i nes s , w hi ch he a t tr i but es t o hi s ethni ci ty . H e al s o s t at es thathi s bus i nes s w as v a n d a l i z e d “ s e v e r a l t i me s ” a n d a n t i - Arme n i a n g r a f f i t i wa s p a i n t e d o n th e wa l l s . He m arr i ed hi s fi ancé e i n 2000, and s hor t l yther eaf t ers he w as det ai ned bypol i ce w ho, acc or di ng t o M art i r os ov, att empt ed t o r ape he r . T hr oughoutthes e i nci dent s , M art i r os ov sta tes h e d id n o t co m p lain to th e a u th o rities o r se e k h e lp b e c a u se “ [ w ]e k n e w th a t if so m eo n e o f C au ca sian o ri g in f il ed a c o m p lai n t aga inst th e m il it ia th e re p erc u ssion s w ere s ever e — s uch per s on w oul d be s ever el ybeat en up and c oul d be cha r ged w i th a s er i ous4

cr i m e on the bas i s of fa l s e ac cus at i ons . ” H e furtheral l eges r ece i vi ng num er ous thr eat eni ng t el ephone c al l s and bei ng vi s i t ed by“one huge U kr ai ni an” i n N ovember2000 w h o d e m a n d e d th a t h e a b a n d o n h is b u sin e ss a n d th re a ten e d to k ill M a rtiro so v ’s c h ild if h e d id n o t com p ly . (M arti roso v h ad n o ch il d ren at th at t im e.) O n M ay15 , 20 01 , M art i rosov cam e t o the U nit ed S t at es, ost ensi blyt o p urchase baki ng equi pm entforus e i n hi s bus i nes s . Shor t l yaft erhi s arr i val , he al l eges thathe r ece i ved a l ett erfr om hi s w i fe, w ho w as bythen pr egnant , s t at i ng thati ntruder s had br oken i nt o the bake r y , vandal i zed the pr emi s es , and bea t en her , as a r es ul tof w hi ch s he m i s carr i ed. M art i r os ov s t at es thathe t ol d hi s w i fe t o s el l the bus i nes s . W hen s he w as unabl e t o fi nd a buy er , he al l eges thathi s w i fe s i m pl yabandone d the pr operty . H e di d not return t o U krai ne an d sou gh tasy l um i n the U nit ed S t at es. A t h is h e a rin g b e f

o re th e IJ, M a rtiro so v ’s te stim o n yw a s g e n e ra llyc o n sis ten t w ith the al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n hi s amended as y l um appl i cat i on. I n addi t i on, he t es t i fi ed he w as for ced t o paybr i bes t o num er ous ci tyoffi ci al s t o keep hi s bus i nes s open, and cl ar i fi ed thathi s bakeryw as onl yvandal i zed tw i ce. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatthe “huge U kr ani an” w ho thr eat ened hi m di d s o on tw o occa s i ons , and both t i m es the man demanded $500, w hi ch M art i r os ov pai d. T he I J i nqui r ed aboutthe w her eabout s of the let ter i n w h ich M arti roso v ’s w ife told h im ab o u t th e m iscarri ag e, an d M arti roso v ’s couns el s t at ed thathe di d nothave i tbutas s um ed thatthe j udge had be en pr ovi ded w i th a copybeca us e the l ett erhad bee n s ubm i t t ed t o the I N S. T he j udge i nform ed couns el t hat5

thi s w as an unw arr ant ed as s um pt i on, butcouns el di d notoffe rt o pr ovi de the courtw i th a c o p yo f th e le tte r. F o ll o w ing this he aring , the IJ re n d ere d an o ral de cisi o n d en y ing M arti roso v ’s appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and hi s r eques tforpr ot ect i on under the C A T , b u t gran ti n g h im v o lun taryd ep arture. T h e IJ f o u n d that so m e o f M arti roso v ’s tes tim o n yre latin g to d isc rim in a tio n a n d h a ra ss m e n t b yU k ra in ian a u th o rities w a s c re d ib le butthatthi s conductdi d notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. M or eover , the I J concl uded th a t M a rtiro so v d id n o t es tab lish th a t th e U k ra in ian g o v e rn m e n t w a s u n w ill in g o r u n a b le to p ro tec t h im f

ro m c rim e s, a n d f

o u n d th a t h is te stim o n yre g a rd in g th e v a n d a lism o f h is bu si ness and subsequ ent ext ort i on w as not cr edibl e, l argel ybecau se “non e of those pr obl ems [i s ] document ed i n anyw ay[bec aus e M art i r os ov] has notpr ovi ded anytype of corr obor at i on forthi s al l eged e xt or t i on att empt bythi s i ndi vi dual oreven the i ns t ance s of vandal s hur t i ng the r es pondent ’ s s t or e. ” The I J al s o ques t i oned M art i r os ov’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng the bea t i ng of hi s w i fe a nd hers ubs equentm i s carr i age, not i ng thatM art i r os ov d id n o t p ro v id e th e lette r to th e c o u rt a n d “ q u e stio n [ in g ] [ M a rtiro so v ’s] c o n ten tio n th a t if hi s w i fe ha d s uffe r ed thi s type of a s s aul t[he] w oul d then r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es for anothery earl i vi ng w i th a fr i end tr y i ng t o fi gur e outw hatt o do. ” The I J fur thernot ed that the fa ct s al l eged byM art i rosov, even i ncludi ng tho se that w ere notcredi ble, did not r i se t o the l evel of per s ecut i on, nordi d theyr i s e t o the l evel of t or tur e.6

M art i r os ov appea l ed t o t he B I A , w hi ch s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed the i m m i gr at i on j udge w ith o u t o p in io n o n M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 . H e th e n tim e ly p e titio n e d f o r r e v ie w to o u r C o u rt . I I . St andar d of R evi ew B eca us e the B I A s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thoutopi ni on and adopt ed thatdeci s i on as the fi nal agenc yact i on, w e r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on di r ect l y . G ao v. A shcroft , 29 9 F . 3d 26 6, 27 1 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). W e revi ew the IJ’ s factual fi nd i ng s, i ncludi ng his determ i nati on of w hetherM art i rosov w as subj ectt o p ers ecuti on or has a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on, undera s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. Shar darv. A sh cro ft, 3 8 2 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e sa m e stan d ard ap p li es to the IJ’s cre d ibil ityd eterm ination s. S ee C ao v . A tt ’yG en . o f U . S . , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir . 2005) ( “The cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, l i ke al l I J fac tual fi ndi ngs , i s s ubj ectt o s ubs t ant i al evi dence r evi ew . ”) . I n conduct i ng thi s anal y s i s w e cons i derthe r ecor d as a w hol e and s hal l r ever s e onl yi f “‘ [a] r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he c o n tr a ry.’” S h a rd a r, 3 8 2 F .3 d a t 3 2 3 (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B )) . III. A n a ly sis T h e G o v e rn m e n t m a in tain s, f irst, th a t w e n e e d n o t co n sid e r M a rtiro so v ’s c laim thatthe I J err ed i n faul t i ng hi m fornotpr ovi di ng corr obor at i ng evi dence . I n the G overnm ent ’ s vi ew , the I J ’ s deci s i on r es t ed on the conc l us i on that , acc ept i ng M art i r os ov’ s al l egat i ons as true eve n w i thoutcorr obor at i on, the adve r s e tr eatm enthe su f f e re d d id n o t rise to th e lev e l o f p e rse c u tio n . M a rtiro so v h a s n o t ch a llen g e d th is7

deci s i on and ther efor e, acc or di ng t o the G overnm ent , anyhypothet i cal corr obor at i on err or w oul d be r ender ed harm l es s beca us e an i ndepende ntgr ound of dec i s i on r emai ns unchal l enged. Second, the G overnm entcl ai m s w e ca nnotr evi ew M art i r os ov’ s ar gum ent thathe es t abl i s hed a “ patt ern and pr act i ce” of per s ecut i on agai ns tA r m eni ans i n U kr ai ne b e c a u se h e d id n o t ap p e a l th is iss u e to th e B IA a n d th e re f o re h a s n o t ex h a u ste d h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a s re q u ir e d b y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 ). We a g r e e wi th th e Go v e r n me n to n b o th p o i n t s . I n h i s a p p e a l t o th e BI A, M art i r os ov al l eged e r r oron fourgr ounds : ( 1) the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons w er e not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence ; ( 2) the I J err ed i n det erm i ni ng thatthe l ack of corr obor at i on j us t i fi ed adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs ; ( 3) the I J err ed i n concl udi ng thatt he adver s e tr eatm entt o w hi ch M art i r os ov cr edi bl yt es t i fi ed di d notamount t o per s ecut i on; a n d (4 ) t h e IJ b a s e d h is e v id e n tia ry f in d in g s o n in a p p ro p ri a te s p e c u la tio n a n d c o n je c tu re . M art i r os ov’ s appea l t o t he B I A di d notal l ege a nyerr orr el at ed t o the I J ’ s fai l ur e t o fi nd thatbackgr ound condi t i ons i n U kr ai ne es t abl i s hed a pa t t ern and pr act i ce of per s ecut i on agai ns tA r m eni ans . H e has ther efor e notexhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as r equi r ed by§ 1252( d) ( 1) , and w e ar e cons equent l yw i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o hearhi s appea l o n this gro u n d . S ee , e.g., A b d u lr ah m an v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). L ikew ise, w e a g ree w ith the G o v ern m en t th at th e IJ’s f ind ing that M arti roso v ’s tes tim o n y , inc lu d in g th e p o rtio n s th a t th e IJ f o u n d n o t cr e d ib le, d id n o t am o u n t to per s ecut i on obvi at es anyneed f orus t o cons i derthe corr obor at i on i s s ue. M art i r os ov has8

n o t p e tit io n e d f

o r re v iew o f

th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n th a t, ev e n a c c e p tin g a ll o f h is t es t i m onyas true, he di d notpr ove thathe s uffe r ed orhad a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on as w e have defi ned the t erm . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en of U . S. , 400 F. 3d 157, 167 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( defi ni ng per s ecut i on as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t ortur e, and economi c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom” ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . H i s fai l ur e t o pet i t i on forr evi ew on thi s gr ound m e a n s th e is s u e is w a iv e d . S e e S in g h v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 6 n .5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re f o re , ev e n a ss u m in g M a rtiro so v is c o rre c t th a t th e IJ’ s c o rro b o ra tio n re q u ire m e n ts co n sti tuted erro r, that erro r i s h arm less b ec au se, ev en ac ce p ti n g all o f M arti roso v ’s t es t i m onyas true and c r edi bl e, the I J found thathe w as notper s ecut ed and di d nothave r eas on t o fea rper s ecut i on. M art i r os ov has es s ent i al l yconce ded thi s fi ndi ng bynot ch all en g ing ito n ap p ea l, an d w e a re the ref o re c o n str aine d to d en yh is pe ti ti o n an d af firm the B I A ’ s deci s i on. * * * F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.