2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-9-2009

Inna Osypova v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3703

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Inna Osypova v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 476.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/476
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3703

___________

INNA OSYPOVA, a/k/a Inna Vladimirovna Osypova,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A96-265-564)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Frederic G. Leeds 

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 7, 2009

Before: FUENTES, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed: October 9, 2009 

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inna Osypova, a native of the former U.S.S.R. and a citizen of Ukraine,

arrived in the United States as a visitor in November 2002 with permission to remain until

May 2003. In June 2003, she filed an application for asylum, withholding, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on her experiences as an Assyrian
2

in Ukraine. The Government charged her as removable for overstaying her visa in

August 2003. 

Osypova conceded the removability charge before the Immigration Judge

(“IJ”) at a hearing where she and an expert witness testified in support of her claims. 

Putting aside issues about Osypova’s credibility, the IJ held that Osypova had not shown

past persecution or the possibility of future persecution or torture on the basis on her

nationality. In the alternative, the IJ made an adverse credibility finding. 

Osypova appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA

concluded that it did not need to decide the credibility issue because it agreed with the

IJ’s alternative finding that even if Osypova had been a credible witness, she had failed to

meet her burdens of proof for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. Specifically, the BIA

held that her experiences did not rise to the level of persecution, her son’s experiences

were irrelevant to her request for relief, and neither Osypova nor her expert nor the

information in the background materials showed that she would face persecution in the

future. Osypova presents a petition for review. 

We have jurisdiction over Osypova’s petition for review pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a). See Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). We consider

questions of law de novo. See Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297, 302 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001). 

We review factual findings for substantial evidence. See Butt v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 430,

433 (3d Cir. 2005). Upon review, we will deny Osypova’s petition for review. 
 Despite Osypova’s argument to the contrary, the BIA did not err in declining to 1

resolve the credibility issue and rejecting Osypova’s claims on the merits. See Li v.

Attorney Gen. of the United States, 400 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2005). 

3

 Assuming, as the BIA did, that Osypova’s testimony was credible, 1

Osypova did not describe past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

In addition to incidents that happened in other countries and name-calling when she and

her family came to Ukraine, Osypova described two attacks she suffered in Ukraine. In

1996, while she was shopping for shoes for her daughter, a Nationalist (who was wearing

a Nationalist armband) struck her lower back or “loin” with force, called her “a Caucasian

swindler” or “Caucuses [sic] . . . conniver” and told her not to shop in the stores. R. 14,

223. She required out-patient treatment for soft tissue damage and trauma to her spine. 

R. 225. In 2002, she was squeezed by a Nationalist in a doorway while leaving a store. 

R. 250. She also related how her son was attacked in 1998 by two or three (or up to five)

Nationalists on his way home from school. R. 15, 234. After lobbing epithets, the

Nationalists broke her son’s nose and bloodied his face. R. 228, 231-34. Osypova did

not seek assistance from the police after any of these incidents. 

The incidents Osypova experienced were serious and certainly frightening. 

However, they are examples of isolated criminal activity that do not rise to the level of

persecution. Cf. Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that “two

isolated criminal acts, perpetrated by unknown assailants, which resulted only in the theft

of some personal property and a minor injury, [are] not sufficiently severe to be
4

considered persecution”). Furthermore, although Osypova may have faced unkind

remarks, or even discrimination, her experiences do not rise to the level of persecution.

See Jarbough v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 483 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2007)

(“Abusive treatment and harassment, while always deplorable, may not rise to the level of

persecution.”); Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 233 n.20 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that

courts routinely deny immigration relief to persons “who suffer racial discrimination that

falls short of persecution.”). 

Moreover, Osypova did not prove that she would face future persecution. 

The expert who testified stated that the attacks on Osypova and her son were consistent

with actions of Nationalists and that he believed that she and her family would be

identifiable as different from the Slavic people of Ukraine. R. 201, 209. However, when

pressed, he admitted that he had no information about the persecution of Assyrians,

noting that the group was too small to be tracked. R. 205. He noted that those with

darker skin, including Africans and Asians, were targeted by Nationalists, but he

conceded that Osypova would not be viewed as either. R. 188. The expert could not

point to any specific information in the record about the persecution of Assyrians in

Ukraine. R. 210. Also, although her family members have since moved to other

countries, Osypova’s daughter remained in Ukraine unharmed for years after Osypova’s

departure. R. 257. 
5

In short, Osypova was not entitled to asylum because she did not show that

she faced past persecution or that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution. Nor

did she meet the higher burden of showing a clear probability that she would be

persecuted in Ukraine to entitle her to withholding. Finally, she did not show that it was

more likely than not that she would be tortured on return to Ukraine, so she was not

entitled to CAT relief. For these reasons, we must deny her petition for review.