2008 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 10-6-2008 

# M a mmo do va v

. Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3407

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M a mmodo va v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 407. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/407NOT 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. 07- 3407

_____________ E S M I RA M AM M ADOVA ; T E NGI Z RA M I Z OGL U M AM M ODOV,

P eti ti o n ers

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S ; S E CR E T AR Y OF DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y,

R es pondent

_______________ P etitio n f o r R ev iew o f

an O rd er o f

th e B o ardo f

Imm ig ratio n Ap p eals Age nc y Nos . A98 419 991 and A98 419 992

_ __________ Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Se pt e m be r 11, 2008

___________ Befo re : McKee , Sm it

h andWe is , Cir cuit

Judg es ( Fi l ed: O ct ober 6, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ M c K e e , C i r cui tJudge :We h av e j u risd ictio n u n d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1 ). Wh ere th e B o ardp ro v id es its 1 ow n analy si s r ather than ado pting the IJ ”s deci si on as it s own , we r evie w the BIA’s d ecisio n . S

ee A b d u la i v. A sh cro

ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 545 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) . W e uphol d the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i nat i on i f i t s c onc l us i ons ar e s upport e d by “ r e a s onabl e , s ubs t ant i a l and p ro b ativ e ev id en ce o n th e reco rdco n sid eredas a w h o le” an dw ill rev erse “o n ly if th ere is e v i d e n c e s o c o m

p e l l i n g th at

n o r e a s o n ab l e f

a c t f i n d e r c o u l dc o n c l u d e a s th e [ a g e n c y] did.” M u la n ga v. A sch ro

ft , 349 F.3d12 3, 13 1 (3dCir. 20 03 ).

-2- E s m i r a M amm adova a nd Te ngi z Ram i z Ogl u Mamm a dov ( “ Pe t i t i one r s ” ) pe t i t i on for r e vi e w of afi na l or de r

of r e m ova l i s s ue d by

the Boar d of I mm i gr at i on Appe a l s on July 17 , 200 7. Beca

use s ub st anti al evidence supp orts the Board’s conclusi on that Peti ti on er s fai le d to est abli sh that thei r e xp er ie nces rose to the l evel of pers ec ution o r that the i r fe ar of futur e pe r s e c ut i on i s obje c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e , we wi l l de ny the pe t i t i on. 1 I. I na s m uc h a s we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y fo r the part i e s wh o ar e fam i l i ar wi th thi s c a s e , we need no t r epeat t

he fact ual or proceduralbackgrou nd . Pet it ioners ar gu e that the Bo ar d “en g ag edin its o w n f

act-f in d in g ” an din d o in g so , f ailedto u se th e p ro p er “clearly e rr one ous ” s t andar d of r e vi e w a ppl i c abl e t o s uc h fa c t

ua l fi ndi ngs . The y

m i s unde r s t and the Board’s op inion. Th e Board concluded that thei r e xp er ie nces , whether consider ed in d iv idu ally

o r cu m u lativ ely , d idn o t rise to th e lev el o f “p ersecu tio n ” requ iredf o r relief . I n doi ng s o, the Boar d a

ppl i e d the c orr e c t

l e ga l s t andar d t o the fa c t s of the c a s e , and m ad e its o w n j u d g m en t ab o u t w h eth er th e reco rdsup p o rteda f in d in g o f “p ast pers ec ution” or a “ well -fou nd ed fear of fu ture pers ec ution.” The Boar d’ s ne gat i ve c onc l us i on i s s upport e d by s ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e i n the-3-

re cord. App lying o ur deferenti al st andard of re view, we c on cl ud e that the re cord do es n o t clearly

co m p el th e co n clu sio n th at th e d if f icu lties an dh arassm en t P etitio n ers f acedin A zerb aij an rise to th e lev el o f p ersecu tio n . T he “c onceptof per s ecut i on does not encompas s al l t r eat m ent t hat our s oci et y r egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , or even unl aw ful or uncons t i t ut i onal . ” Fa t i n v . I NS , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). Furthe rm or e , we fi nd no e rr or i n the Boar d’ s c onc l us i on that the c orr obor at i ng e vi de nc e of c ountry c ondi t i ons d idn o t estab lish “an o b

j ectiv ely reaso n ab le w ell-f

o u n d edf ear o f retu rn to A zerb aij an .” II. Be c aus e Pe t i t i one r s fa i l e d t o m e e t the a s yl um

e l i gi bi l i ty

s t andar d, the y

c annot m eet th e m o re rig idw ith h o ld in g o f rem o v al stan d ard . J

anus i ak v . I NS , 947 F. 3d 46, 46- 48 (3d C ir . 199 1). Further m ore, Peti ti on er s do n ot chal le ng e the Bo ar d’s c on cl usion that the y ar e not e l i gi bl e for

r e l i e f unde r

the Uni t e d Nat i ons Conve nt i on Aga i ns t Tort ur e , and i t i s c l e ar th at th e r e c o r dw o u l dn o t

s up p o rt s u c h ac l a i m. A cco rd in g ly , w e w ill d en y th eir p etitio n f

o r rev iew .