Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court h as determined th at this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is notprecedent exceptunder thelimited circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. The Korneenkovs al so argue o n appeal thattheyare eligible for withholdin g of 1 re moval un der Section24 1 (b)( 3) of th e I mmi grationan d Nation alityAct , 8U .S .C
. § 1 2 3 1 (b)( 3), and theUnited Nations Conve ntion Again st Torture and Other Cru el, Inhuman or Degrading Tre atment or Punish ment, Dec. 10, 198 4, S. Tre aty Doc. No. 100 -20 (198 8), 1 465U.N.T .S. 85
. However , the Korneenkovs did not appeal the Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 60712
AL EXEYKORNEENKO V; OLE S YA KORNEENK OVA P et i t i on ers v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R. , U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d P R A D O an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Pet i t i on ers A l exe y K or neenkov ( “A l exe y” ) and O l es ya K or neenkova ( “ O l esya”) (col l ect ivel y “ t h e K orneen kov s” ) chal l en ge t h e B oard of I m m i grati on A p p ea l s ( “B IA”) o rd er d i sm i ssingth eir a p p ea lo f an Im m i gr a ti on J u d ge ’ s ( “IJ”) d e n ia l o f th eir ap p l i ca ti on s f or a sy l u m . T h e K orn ee n k ov s ar gu e th a t t h e B IA

1 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 60712

for withholdin g of re moval one it he r of thesegroun ds. Accordingly , we l ack j uri sdiction to co n si der thes e is su eso napp eal. See8 U.S.C. § 125 2(d)(1) (“A court may review a finalorder of re moval only if—the alien has exhau sted all administrative re medies avail able tothe alie n a s of ri ght
. . . .”). 2 er r ed i n det er m i ni ng t hatt hey ar e n ot el i gibl e f oras yl um f

r om t hei rnat ive coun t ry, R u ssi a, becau se t h ey w ere not persecuted on stat u t ori l y protec t ed g r o u n d s . S p e c ific a lly , th e ya s s e r t t h a t (1 ) th e yw e r e p e r s e c u t e din R u s s ia becau se of

t h ei r s t atus as m en t al l y di sabl ed p ersons an d ( 2) m en t al l y di sabl ed per so ns c ons t i t ut e a“ so c i algr oup” f orasyl um pu r pos es . B ec ause w e hol d t hat t h e Ko r n e e n k o v s we r e n o tp e r s e c u t e d a s d e f i n e d b y a p p l i c a b l e l a w, we AF FI RM t h e B IA ’ s or der den yi n g asyl u m an d n eed n otreach t h e “ soci algroup ” i ssue. T h e K orn ee n k ov s f

u rth er ch a l l en ge the B IA ’ s d en i a lof th eir m oti on to
rem an d t o t h e IJ on t h e groun d of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of coun sel. W e agree w i t h the B I A’ s c o nc l us i o n t hatt he K o r ne e nko vs w e r e no tpr ej udi c e d b y any al l e ged d ef

i c i e nc y i n t he i rc o uns e l ’ s pe r f o r m anc e a nd t he r e f

o r e AFF I RM t he BI A’ s de ni alo f

t he i rm o t i o n t o r e m and
. I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND A. Fac t ualBac kgr ound The K o r ne e nko vs , a marr i e dc o upl e , a r e na t ive s a nd c i t i z e ns o f Rus s i a w ho
w e r e a dm i t t e d t o t h e U ni t e d St at e s i n Se pt e m be r2 00 5 as no n- i m m i gr ant vi si t ors f

or pl easu re w i t h au t h ori zati on t o rem ai n i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates n o l ater t ha n M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 6
. Ra t he rt ha n l e a v i ngb yt ha td a t e , t he Ko r neenkovs
rem ai n ed i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates w i t h ou tau t h ori zati on by th e D e p a rtm en tof H o m e l andSe c ur i t y ( “ D H S” )
. Ac c o r di ngly, i n A pri l2 00 6, t he D H S s e r ve d t he K orneen kov s w i t h a noti ce t o ap pea r, cha rgi n g t h em as r em ovab l e un der S ect i on 2 3 7 (a )(1 )(B ) o f th e Im m ig r a tio n a n dN a tio n a lityA c t (“ IN A”). S ee 8 U. S
. C. § 122 7( a) ( 1) ( B )
. Th e K orneen kov s f i l ed ap pl i ca tion s f

or asyl u m , al l egi n g pa stN o. 07- 60712

3 p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f m e m b e r s h ip in a s o c ia l g r o u p co n s is tin go f m e n ta lly di sabl ed p ersons. A t a hea r i ng be f

o r e a n I J, t he K o r ne e nko vs c o nc e de d t hatt he y w ere r e m o va bl e f

r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s a s c har ge d. At a s ubs e que nt he ar i ng o n t he
m e r its o f th e ira p p lic a tio n s fo ra s y lu m , th e yd e s c r i b e dth e ire x p e r ie n c e s in R u s s ia
. Al exey t e s t i f

i e d a s f o l l o w s : As a c hi l d, he a t t e nde d ag o ve r nm e nt
- r un sch oo lf or m en tall y d i sa b l ed ch i l d ren k n ow n a s a n “I n tern a t. ” A t t h e In tern a t,
an i nt oxi c at ed t eac her st r uck hi m i n t he head w i t h a w oo den hanger , c ausi ng an i nj ur y t hatr e qui r e d s t i t c he s . H i s pa r e nt s c o m pl ai ne d t o t he di re c t o ro f t he I n t e r n a t , b u tth e d ir e c t o rd i d n o t d is c ip li n e th e te a c h e ra n dw a r n e dA le x e y ’s p a ren ts t h a t th eyw ou l dh a ve tro u b l e i f th eytoldan yo n e else a b ou t t h e incide n t. A l t h ou gh A l exey ack n ow l edg e d that t h at w as t h e onl y t i m e a t each er ever ab us e d hi m a tt he I nt e r nat , he t e s t i f i e d t hatt e ac he r s t hr e at e ne d s t ude nt s a nd g a v e s o me s t u d e n t s me d i c i n e t h a tc a u s e dt h e m t o fa l la s l e e p d u r i n gl e s s o n s . H e al s o t e s t i f

i e d t hathe o nc e w i t ne s s e d afe m al e s t ude ntb e i ng r ap e d. Af t e rl e a v i n gt h e I n t e r n a t , A l e x e ywo r k e df o ra c o n s t r u c t i o n c o mp a n y . On
on e occ a sion , A l ex ey ’ s su p erv i sor, w h o w a s i n tox i ca ted an du n h a p p y w i th A l e x e y ’ s w o r k , p u s h e da h a mme rt o h i s h e a d , h i t h i m, a n ds t o l e mo n e yf r o m h i m. A le x e yfu r th e rcla im e dth a t h is c o - w o r k e r s d is lik e dh im b e c a u s e o f h is di sabi l i t i es. A l exey l ef

tt h e const ructi on com pa n y an d took a j ob w i t h an ot h er c o m pa ny. W hi l e Al e xe y w as e m pl o ye d t he r e , hi s sup e r vi s o r , w ho w as s t e al i ng f r o m t h e co m p a n y , co e r c e dh im in to h e lp in gh e rs te a l. S h e th r e a te n e dto k ill A le x e ya n dh is fa m ilyif h e to lda n y o n e th a t s h e w a s s te a lin g , a n ds h e c a lle d h is h o m e a n ds c r e a m e da tO le s y a th a tth e yw e r e “a fa m il yo f ‘id io t s ’ a n d‘im b e c il e s .’” Fi nal l y, Al e xe y t e s t i f i e d t hati n 2 00 4, fo urpol i c e of f i c e r s st o ppe d hi m a nd
as ke d f o rhi s i de nt i f

i c at i o n, w hi c h he w as l e ga l l y r e qui r e d t o ca r r y w i t h hi m a ndN o. 07- 60712

4 f or w h i ch R u ssi an pol i ce c ou l d check at an y t i m e. W h en A l exey di d not produ ce h i s i den t i f

i cat i on — w h i ch he h ad l ef t at w ork— t h e pol i ce of f i cers pu l l ed h i s arm ba c k, c aus i n g h i s spi ne t o “ c r ac k[] , ” a nd t o o k hi m t o t he po l i c e s t at i o n. Att he
s t at i o n, t he po l i c e s e i z e d hi s be l o ngi ngs , i ni t i al l y r e f us e d t o a l l o w hi m t o us e t he t el eph on e, f

orced hi m t o cl ean t h e t oi l et s, beat h i m u n t i lh e los tconsci ou sness, t hr e w w at e ro n hi m t o w ak e hi m up, a nd t o l d hi m t o c al lhi s p aren t s to “br i ng lo ts o f m o n e y” fo rh im to b e r e le a s e d
. T h e y th r e a te n e dto k ill h im if h is fa m ily rep orted the i n ci d en t. O l es ya al so r ec ount ed herex per i en ces i n R uss i a. O l es ya t es t i f i ed t hat
w h en she w as a chi l d, chi l dren i n her schoolbeat her, bi ther, pu l l ed h er hai r, s ho ut e d a the r , a nd l aug he d a the r . She a l s o t est i f i ed— w i t ho ut
e l aborati on — t h at t each ers abu sed h er and t h at despi t e her pa r e nt s ’r e que s t s the
s c ho o lt o o k no c o r r e c t ive a c t i o n. W he n a s ke d i f s he had pr o bl e m s w i t h a nyo ne ou t si de of

sc h ool , O l esya st ated t h at dru n ka rds pi cked on h er by poi n t i n g at her andc al l i ng he rdi s ab l e d. O l esya te sti f

i ed that w h en she w as seventeen yea rs ol d, t w o m en at t em pt ed t o r ape he rw hi l e she w as on herw ay hom e f r om a s t or e. O l es ya had
a c c o m p a n ie dh e rm o th e rto th e s to r e , a n dh e rm o th e rin s tr u c te dh e rto w a it out si de. Af

t ers om e t i m e, O l es ya ass um ed t hath erm ot herh ad l ef tand beg an t o w al k hom e . N e arhe rho us e , t w o m e n a ppr o ac he d he ra nd l ur e d he ra r o und
a c o r ne rb y t e l l i ng he rt hat t he y hadpup pi e s t o s e l l
. Ol e s yaf o l l o w e d t he m e n, an d t h ey t ook her i n t o a bu i l di n g w h ere t h ey att acked her. Th e m en beat her, att em pted t o pu l loff

h er cl ot h es, a n d chok ed h er befor e a bystand er c am e t o her ai d and c ause d t hem t o f l ee . O l es ya w as pr om pt l y hos pi t al i ze d, and al t hough t h e p o li c e p r o m is e dto a p p r e h e n dth e s u s p e c t s , t h e y a l s o i n fo r m e dO le s y a ’s pa rents t h at t h ey m i gh tha ve a bett er c h an ce of f i n di n g h er at t ackers t he m s e lve s . Ol e s ya ’ s a t t ac ke r s w e r e ne ve ra ppr e he nde d.N o. 07- 60712

5 O l e s ya ’ s fat he rt e s t i f i e d t hati tw as di f

f i c ul tt o g e tg o o d m e di c alt r e at m e nt fo rO le s y a in R u s s ia a n dth a t h e d idn o t b e lie v e th a t A l e x e y a n d O l e s y a co u ld l ive on t hei row n i n R uss i a. F i n a l l y, t h e K orn ee n k ov s p roffere dan aff i d a vit from O l esy a ’ s m oth er. In t he af f i davi t , O l es ya’ s m ot hers t at ed t hatO l es ya w as dr opped on herhead at bi rt h an d corr oborated O l esya’ s acc ou n t s of school chi l dren pi cki n g on h er, her at t e m pt e d r ap e , a nd Al e xe y’ s ne ga t ive e xp e r i e nc e s a tw o r k. B . P rocedu ralH i st ory The IJ r e nde r e d a n o r alde c i s i o n de nyi ng t he K o r ne e nko vs ’a ppl i c at i o ns fo ra s y lu m , fin d in gth a t t h e in c id e n ts t h a t th e yr e c o u n te dw e r e n o t s u ffic ie n tly
se ver e t o r i se t o t he l eve l of per se c ut i on or w er e no ton ac c ountof t hei rm ent al di s ab i l i t i e s . Sp e c i f

i c al l y, w i t h r e ga r d t o O l e s ya ’ s a t t e m pt e d r ap e , t he I J f o und t h at t h ere w as i n suff i ci en tevi den ce t h at t h e perpetrat ors t argeted her becau se of her m en t aldi sabi l i t i es. A f t er obt ai n i n g n ew coun sel , t h e K orneen kov s app eal ed the IJ’ s deci si on t o t h e B IAan d als o m oved t o rem an d on t h e basi s of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of
c o u n s e l. A s s u m in gw ith o u t d e c id in gth a t m e n ta llyd is a b le dp e r s o n s in R u s s ia
c o n s t it u t e a “s o c ia l g r o u p ” fo ra s y lu m p u r p o s e s , t h e B IAa ff ir m e dth e I J ’s de c i s i o n a nd d e ni e d t he m o t i o n t o rem an d, f i ndi ng t hatt he i nc i de nt s t hatt he K orkeen kov s de s c r ibe d d i d no tr i s e t o t he l e ve lo f pe r s e c ut i o n. The BI A a l so d e te r m in e dth a t t h e K o r n e e n k o v s fa ile dto d e m o n s tr a te p r eju d ic e fr o m th e ir fo r m e rco u n s e l’ s fa ilu r e to p r e s e n t t e s tim o n yfr o m O le s y a ’ s m o th e ra n dD r . E r ic Rez ni k (“ D r . Rez ni k” ) , a ps yc ho l o gi s t
. Ac c o rdi ngly, t he BI A de ni e d t he K o rn een kov s’m ot i on t o rem an d. Th e K orneen kov s t i m el y f i l ed a p et i t i on f

or r e v ie w . S ee8 U
. S. C
. § 1252. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e r e vi e w t he BI A’ s r e s o l ut i o n o f que s t i o ns o f l aw d e no vo , “ gi vi ng c o n s id e r a b le d e fe r e n c e to th e B IA ’ s in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e le g is la tiv e s c h e m e it isN o. 07- 60712

6 en tru sted to ad m i n ister. ” Zh u v. G on zal es , 493 F. 3d 588, 594 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (i n tern a lqu ota ti on m a rk s om i tted). “W e rev i ew fac tu a lfi n d i n gs of th e B oa rd to d eterm i n e if

the y a re su p p orted bysu b stan ti a le vid en ce i n th e reco rd
. ” Mi kh ael
v . I NS , 1 1 5 F .3 d2 9 9 , 3 0 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). U n d e rth is s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r d , w e w ill
r e ve r s e t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n “ o nl y w he n t he e vi de nc e i s ‘ so com pe l l i ng t hatno rea so n a b le factf

i n der coul d fai lt o f

i n d’t h e peti t i on er s t atutor i l y el i gibl e f or reli ef. ” R oy v. A sh cr oft , 389 F. 3d 132, 138 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng INSv. E l i asZac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S
. 4 7 8 , 4 8 3 -8 4 (1 9 9 2 ))
. M e r e d is a g r e e m e n tw i t h t h e B I A ’s fac t ualf

i ndi ngs i s no ta suf

f i c i e ntgr o und f

o rre ve r s al ; w e m ayr e ve r s e o nl y i f t he
e v id e n c e co m p e ls a co n c lu s io n o p p o s ite to th a t r e a c h e db yth e B IA
. S e eG i r ma v . I NS , 2 8 3 F .3 d6 6 4 , 6 6 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); Mi kh ael , 1 1 5 F .3 da t 3 0 4 ; seealso Co n s o lo v . F

e d . Ma r . Co m m ’n , 383 U
. S
. 607 , 622 (1966 ) ( “ [ T ] h e possibi l i t y of dra w i ng t w o i nco nsi st entc onc l usi on s f r om t he e vi denc e do es notpr eve ntan a d m in istr a tive agen cy’ s f i n d in gfro m b e in gsu p p o rte db ysu b sta n tia l ev id e n ce .”)
.
“ E ven t hough w e h a ve aut hor i t y t o r evi ew onl y t he B I A ’ s dec i si on, w e m ay con siderthe IJ’ s d ecisi on to t h e ex ten t t h a t i t i n fl u e n c e d t h e B IA
. ” Masi h v. Mu ka sey , 5 3 6 F .3d 3 7 0 , 3 7 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ).

“A s a general m att er, t h e deter m i n ati on t h at an al i en i s not el i gibl e f or c o ns i de r at i o n f

o ra s yl um i s a fac t ualc o nc l us i o n r e vi e w e d un de rt he
su b stan ti a l -evide n ce st a n d a rd
. ” T h u ri v
. A sh cr oft , 380 F
. 3d 788 , 791 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ); s e ea ls o Za mo r a - Mo r e lv . I NS , 9 05 F. 2d 8 33, 8 38 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 0)
. The
sam e i s t rue of

t h e m ore s peci f

i c det erm i n ati on of

w h et h er t h e al i en suf fered p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t of a s ta tu to r ily e n u m e r a te d g r o u n d
. T h u ri , 380 F. 3d at 7 9 1 ; se e a lso O n tu n ez -Tu rs ios v. A sh cr oft , 3 0 3 F .3d 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 -5 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e r e vi e w t he B I A’ s deni alof a m o t i o n t o re m andfo ra bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. Ca s t i l lo - Pe r e zv . I

NS , 2 1 2 F .3d 5 1 8 , 5 2 3 (9t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ).

III . A N A L Y S IS 1 . D e ni alof

As yl umN o. 07- 60712

The parties a gre e th at the Real ID Actame ndment applie s inthis ca se. 2 7 T o qu al i f

y f or th e d iscr et i on ary rel i ef of asyl u m , an al i en m u stbe a “refug ee . ” T

esf am i cha elv. G on zal es , 4 6 9 F .3 d1 0 9 , 1 1 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); see8 C
. F
. R
. § 1208
. 13(a)
. Aref u gee, i n t u rn, i s a person u n able or un w i l l i n g t o ret u rn t o hi s orher coun t ry “becau se of persecuti on or a w el l

- f ou n de d fear of per se c ut i on on ac c ount of r ac e, r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y, m em ber shi p i n a par t i c ul ar s o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a lo p i n io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A); accord T esf am i cha el , 469 F
. 3d at 113
. P ast persecuti on consti t u t es “ h arm i n f l i ct ed on [ an ] al i en on accoun tof a st atutor i l y en u m erat ed grou n d byt h e governm en tor forces th a t a go ve rn m en t i s u n a b l e or u n w i l l i n g to co n trol. ” T esf am i cha el , 469 F
. 3d at 113 (cit i n g 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 0 8 .13 (b) ( 1) )
. To sh ow a w el l

- f ou n ded fear of f ut u r e p e r s e c u t i o n , a n a l i e n mus te s t a b l i s h “ t h a ta r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n i n t he
s a m e cir c u m s ta n c e s w o u ldfe a rp e r s e c u tio n [o n a c c o u n t o f a s ta tu to r ily
en u m era ted g rou n d ] i f d ep orted
. ” Ca s t i l lo - Ro d r ig u e zv . I NS , 929 F. 2d 181, 184 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); accord Ju k i c v . I NS , 4 0 F
. 3d 7 47, 749 ( 5th C i r. 199 6)
. I n ei t h er ca se , u n d e r th e R E A L ID A ct a m e n d m e n t, 8 U .S .C
. § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1)(B )(i), to q u a li fy 2 f o ra s yl um , a n a l i en m u stde m o ns t r at e t hata s t at ut o r i l y e num e r at e d g r o und “w a s o rw ill b e a t le a s t o n e ce n tr a l re a s o n fo rp e r s e c u tin gth e a p p lic a n t.” A l t hough t he I N Adoe s notdef i ne “ per se c ut i on, ” w e have def i ned i tas The i nf l i c t i o n of

s uf fe r i ng o rha r m , und e rg o ve r nm e nts anc t i o n, u pon persons w h o di f fer in a w ay regard ed as of fen sive ( e. g. , race, rel i gi on , pol i t i calopi n i on , et c. ) , i n a m an n er c on dem n ed bycivi l i zed gov er nm ent s. The harm or suf fer i ng need notbe physi c al , butm ay t ak e ot h er f

orm s, such a s th e del iberate i m posi t i on of severe ec onom i c di sa dvant age ort he depr ivat i on o f l iber t y, f

oo d, housi ng, em pl oym en tor ot h er es senti al s of l i fe. C h en v. G on za les , 470 F. 3d 1131, 1135 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng A be l

- Masi e h v. I NS , 73 F. 3d 579, 583 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) )
. N ot abl y, n otev er y i nf l i c t i on o f

har m by
o n e p e r s o n u p o n a n o th e rris e s to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . S e eA d e d i s iv . I NS ,N o. 07- 60712

8 952 F
. 2d9 10 , 9 13 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2) ( “ The l aw r e gul at i ng pe r s e c ut i o n cl ai m s, al t h ou gh hu m an e in con cept, is n otg en erous. ” ). A s w e ha ve observed, “ [ n ] ei t h er di s c r i m i nat i o n no rha r as s m e nto r di n ari l y am o unt s t o pe r s e c ut i o n und e rt he IN A , even i f

t h e condu ctam ou n t s t o ‘ m oral l y reprehen sibl e’di scr i m i n ati on on t he bas i s of r ac e orreli gion
. ” E d u a rdv. A sh cr oft , 379 F
. 3d 182 , 188 ( 5th C i r. 2004)
. Si m i l ar l y, w e have not ed t hat

“ [ p]er secuti on i s not a l i m i t l ess concept.
. . . [ I] tdoes not encom pa ss al lt reat m en tt h at our s oci et y regard s a s un fai r, unj u stor even unl aw f ulorunco nst i t u ti on a l
. I f per se c ut i on w er e de f i ned t hat exp an sivel y, a si gn i f i can t percentage of t h e w orl d’ s popu l ati on w ou l d qu al i f

y f or asyl u m i n t h i s c ou n t ry— an d i tseem s m ost unl i kel y t hatC ongr es s i nt ended s uch a r es ul t
. Per se c ut i on m ustbe e x tr e m e co n d u c t t o q u a lifyfo ra s y lu m p r o te c tio n .” Maj dv. G on zales , 446 F. 3d 590, 595 ( 5t h C i r . 2006 ) (quot i ng A l

- Fa r a v. G on zales , 4 0 4 F .3d 7 3 3 , 7 3 9 (3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 )) (a lter a tion s a n dom iss ion in or igin a l). M is tr e a tm e n t “ c o m p o s e do f m e r e d e n ig r a tio n , h a r a s s m e n t, a n dth r e a ts ” is in s u ffic ie n t. E d u ard , 379 F. 3d at188. T h e K orn ee n k ov s ar gu e th a t t h e B IAerre di n h oldin g th a t t h e incide n ts t h e y d e sc ribed i n t h ei r t est i m on y bef ore t h e I J do n otri se t o t h e l evelof persecuti on . H ow ever, i n so doi n g t h ey si m pl y re p e a tt h e evi den ce t h at t h ey presented to t h e I J an d reassertt h at t h e i n ci den t s t h e y s u ffer e d w ere s u ffic ie n tlys e v e r e to co n s tit u te p e r s e c u tio n . T h is is in s u ffic ie n t t o m e e t t h e ir h e a v yb u r d e n o n a p p e a l. Al t h o u g h A l e x e yma yh a v e b e e n h a r a s s e da tt h e I n t e r na t an dh i s t wo pl aces of

em pl oym en t , t h e i n ci den t s t h at he described do n otri se t o t h e l evelof p e r s e c u tio n . Cf

. K a p c i av . I NS , 9 44 F. 2d7 02 , 7 04

- 05 ( 10 t h Ci r . 1 99 1) (upho l di ng BI A’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hata l i e ns w e r e no t pe r s e c ut e d when o ne w as a r r e s t e d f o ur t i m es , det ai ned t hre e t i m es , be at en o nce , had hi s house s ear c hed, and w as t r e at e d a dv e r s e l y atw o r k, and ano t he r w as t w i c e de t ai ne d f o r t w o da ys dur i ng w hi c h t i m e he w as i nt e r r o ga t e d a n d beaten, ha d hi s pa r e nt s ’ho us e s e ar c he d,N o. 07- 60712

Th e Korneenkov s, citing 8 C .F .R
. § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b)(2)(iii) , argu e onapp eal th at pa st 3 per s ec ut io n clai ms do not require proof of particularized persecutionwhenanaliencan 9 w a s fire dfro m h is job , a n dw a s s u b s e q u e n tlyd e ta in e da n db e a te n a g a in ). F u rt h er, t h e recor d contai n s no evi den ce t h at t h e R u ssi an pol i ce w h o detai n ed A l exey d i d so becau se o f hi s m en t aldi sabi l i t i es. Th u s, t h i s i n ci den tcann ot sup port h i s cl ai m tha th e w as p ersec u t ed on a ccoun tof h i s m en t aldi sabi l i t i es. Se eEl i as - Zac ar i us , 502 U
. S. at 483 ( “ [ S] i nce t he [ I N A ] m akes m ot ive c r i t i c al , [ an al i en ] m u stprovi de s o meev id e n ce of it, d ire ct o r c ircu m sta n tia l. ”). O l esya h as si m il a rl y fai l ed to al l ege pa stt reat m en tri si n g t o t h e l evelof persecuti on on acco u n t of her m en t aldi sabi l i t i es. H arassm en tf rom f el l ow s tu d e n ts a n dd r u n k a r d s is in s u ffic ie n t, seeE d u ard , 37 9 F. 3d at 188, an d s he pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e t hathe ra t t e m pt e d r ap e — al t ho ugh t r ag i c— w as a nyt hi ng m or e t han a r andom c r i m i nalac t
. A s t he I J e xpl ai ned, t her e i s no e vi denc e t hat O l esya’ s assai l an t s t argeted her becau se of her di sabi l it i e s . M o r e over, t h e rec ord i ndi c at es bo t h t hatthe R uss i an pol i c e pro m i se d to f i nd t he ass ai l ant s ( al t hough t hey w er e ul t i m at el y unabl e t o do s o) and t hatO l es ya r ec eived pro m ptm edi c al t r e at m e nta f

t e rt he a t t ac k. A s e x p la in e d a b o v e , “[u ]n d e r th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a r da p p lic a b le t o revi ew of den i al s of asyl u m , w e m u stdefer t o t h e B IA ’ s fact u alf i n di n gs un l ess t he e vi de nc e i s s o c o m pe l l i ng t hatno reason abl e fac tf i nde rc o ul d fai lt o f

i nd oth erw i se.” Mi kh ael , 115 F
. 3d at 304
. E v e n if a reasonab l e fact f i n der co u ld h ave f ou n d these i n ci den t s s u f f i ci en tt o const i t u t e past pers ecuti on , w e cann ot
reverse u n l ess a fact f i n der w ou l d be compel ledto d o s o . Se ei d. Bas e d o n t he
recor d befor e u s, w e can n otsay tha tt h e K orneen kov s hav e provi ded “ evi den ce [ o f pe r s e c ut i o n o n a c c o unto f t he i rm e nt aldi s ab i l i t i es] so c o m pe l l i ng t hatno r e as o nab l e fac t
- f

i nde rcoul d c o nc l ude a ga i ns ti t , ” a s i s r e qui r e d t o r e ve r s e t he B IA ’ s d e te r m in a tio n . S ee Mo in v. A sh cr oft , 335 F
. 3 d 4 1 5 , 4 18 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). 3N o. 07- 60712

es tab li shap att ernor pr actic e of p er se cutiona gain stagroup of si milarlysitu ate d pers on s. However , the cite d re gulation app lies to cl aim s for a well -f oun de d fe ar of fut ureper secution, not topastpers ecution. Int h e irb ri e f to the BIA, the Korne enk ovs donot cit e 8 C.F.R. § 2 08.1 3(b)(2)(iii) or discuss current Ru ssian countryconditions regardingmentally disab led adults. B ecau se the Korneenkovs did not raise the argument tothe BIA th at theyare e ntitled to as ylum bas ed on a we ll- fou ndedfearof future pe r s e c utio n, thi s court do esnot have j uri sdictionto a ddre ss it
. See8U .S .C
. § 1 2 5 2 (d)( 1 ). 10 2 . D e ni alof

M ot i on t o Rem and Last l y, t he K or neenkovs ar gue t hatt he B I Aabu sed i t s di sc r et i on by den yi n g t h ei r m ot i on t o rem an d to t h e I J on t h e groun d of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of coun sel. Th e K orneen kov s argue that t h ei r i n i t i alcoun selw as def i ci en tf or n otcal l i n g O l esya’ s m ot h er and D r. R eznik t o t est i f y bef ore t h e I J. T h ey assert t hatO l es ya’ s m oth er “w oul d have pro vi ded [ a] per so nalac c ountof t he s oc i al vi sibi l i t y of M r s. K or neenkova’ s di sa bi l i t i es ” and t hat D r . R ez ni k “ cou l d have p rov i d ed the C ou rt w i th va l u a b l e insigh t as to th e per secu ti on i n d ivid u a l s w i th d is a b ilitie s s u ffe rin R u s s ia ’ s p s y c h ia tr ic fa c ilitie s .”

“ T o prevai lon a cl ai m of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of coun sel at a deportat i on pro c ee di ng, an al i en m ust sho w ( 1) i nef fec t ive r epr es ent at i on and ( 2) s ubst ant i al p r eju d ic e , w h ic h o c c u r r e d a s a re s u lt o f th e in e ffe c tiv e re p r e s e n ta tio n .” Mi r a n d a - L o r e s v . I

NS , 1 7 F. 3 d8 4 , 8 5 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) (f o o t no t e o m i t t e d )
. To d em on strate su b stan ti a l p reju d i ce, th e K orn ee n k ov s m u st m a k e a p ri m a fa c ie
s ho w i ng t hat , b utf

o rt he i rpr e vi o us c o uns e l ’ s fai l ur e t o c al lO l e s ya ’ s m o t he ra nd D r . R e z n ik , th e yw o u ldh a v e b e e n e n tit le dto a s y lu m . Se ei d. W e a g r e e w i th the B IA ’ s con cl u sion tha t t h e K orn ee n k ov s fa i l ed to d e m o n s tr a te s u b s ta n tia l p r eju d ic e fr o m t h e i rp r e v io u s co u n s e l’ s fa ilu r e to ca ll th e s e t w o w i tn ess es. F i rst, O l esy a ’ s m oth er’ s affi d a vit w a s ad m i tted in to evi denc e a nd co nsi der ed by bot h t he I J and B I A , and t her e i s no e vi denc e t hat h er live testi m on y w ou l dh a ve d iffe r e d from the statem en ts i n h er a ff i d a vit. M o reov er, as t h e B IA n ot ed, h er t est i m on y “ w ou l d not overcom e t h e la ck of a
n exu s bet w een [ O l esya’ s] experi en ces a n d one of t h e st atutor i l y protec t edN o. 07- 60712

11 groun ds. ” Secon d, t h e I J an d B IAaccept ed as fact t h at t h e K orneen kov s w ere m e nt al l y di s ab l e d a nd a dm i t t e d Dr
. Rez ni k’ s e va l uat i o n r e po r ti nt o e vi de nc e, an d there i s no evi den ce t h at D r. R eznik’ s t est i m on y on t h ese i ssues w ou l d n ot h a v e b e e n d u p l i c a t iv e . A d d it io n a ll y , t h e B I Ae x p la in e dth a tD r . R e z n ik ’s

“ c r e de nt i al s do no te s t ab l i s h t hathe i s a bl e t o pr o vi de e xp e r to pi ni o n a nd evi den ce as t o t h e subj ect of m en t al l y di sabl ed i n di vi du al s i n R u ssi a. ” W e agree. D r . R ez ni k’ s c urr i c ul um vi t ae i ndi c at es t hathe i s a ps yc hol ogi stw i t h ext ens ive e x p e r ie n c e a s a th e r a p is t w ith a s p e c ia ltyin th e r a p e u tic m a r tia l a r ts
. H is o n ly
e x p e r ie n c e w it h R u s s ia c a m e d u r in g J u n e a n dJ u lyo f 1 9 9 3 w h e n , a s a M a s t e r ’s st u den t , h e cond u ct ed f i el d r esearch i n R u ssi a an d U kraine on f orm e r S o vi et ps yc hi at r i c fac i l i t i e s a nd c hang e s i n Russ i an ps yc ho l o gy . H e has no tpub l i s he d,
s p o k e n , o r r e c e iv e d tr a in in g o n a lle g e d p e r s e c u tio n o f th e m e n ta lly d is a b le d in R u s s ia o ro n a n yc o n te m p o r a r yh a r d s h ip s m e n ta llyd is a b le dp e r s o n s in R u s s ia
m i gh tface. Acc o r di ngly, w e a gr e e w i t h t he BI A t hatt he K o r ne e nko vs fai l e d t o m ak e a p r im a fa c ie s h o w in gth a t, b u t fo rth e irp r e v io u s c o u n s e l’ s fa ilu r e to ca ll O le s y a ’ s m o th e ra n dD r . R e z n ik , th e yw o u ld h a v e b e e n e n tit le dto a s y lu m . Thus , t he y hav e fai l e d t o dem o ns t r at e s ubs t ant i alpr ej udi c e , a nd we af f i r m t he de ni alo f

t he i rm o t i o n t o r e o pe n. IV . C ONC L US I ON Fort he r e as o ns he r e i n, w e AFF I RM t he BI A’ s di s m i s s alo f t he K o r ne e nko vs ’a ppe ala nd d e ni alo f t he i rm o t i o n t o r e m and
. AF F I RMED.