FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APR 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 19 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 77 -2 46 -3 87

NATALIA A LEXEE VA KAZA KOVA, a.k .a. Nata lja Kaza ko va , MAXIM KALIOUJNYI, a.k .a. Max im

Vlad im iro v Kal io ujn y i, IRINA S. KAZAKOVA,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne rs ,

ve rs us

U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Deci si on of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 29 , 20 11 )Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Nata li a Kazak ov a, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Es to ni a, se ek s re vi ew of th e Bo ard

o f I mm ig rat io n App eal s’s (“ BIA”) or de r rev ers in g th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ” )

gr an t of as y lu m

. Kazak ov a arg ue s on ap pe al th at sh e an d he r fam il y ex pe rie nc ed pa st

pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of th ei r Ru ss ia n he rit ag e, an d th at th e BIA im pe rm is si bl y

en ga ge d i n d e n ov o fa ct fin di ng . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we de ny the pe ti ti on

. W e rev ie w on ly th e BIA’s de ci si on , ex cep t to th e ex te nt th at th e BIA ex pr es sl y
ad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n. Nrek a v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 8 F. 3 d 1 3 6 1 , 1 3 68 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 05 ). W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of la w de no vo , wit h ap pr op ria te de fere nc e to th e BIA’s

reas on ab le in te rp ret at io ns of th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ INA”). Ass a’ad

v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 33 2 F.3 d 13 21 , 13 26 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). W e de fer to th e ag en cy ’s

“ in te rp ret at io n of it s own reg ul at io ns u n l es s th at in te rp ret at io n is pl ai nl y erro ne ou s

or in co ns is te nt wit h t he reg ul at io n.” Id. (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . We r ev ie w th e BIA’s
fact ua l de te rm in at io ns un de r th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce te st

. D-Mu hu m ed v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen ., 38 8 F.3 d 81 4, 81 7- 18 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). Und er th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce te st , we

m us t affi rm th e BIA’s de ci si on if it i s “s u pp or te d by reas on ab le , su bs ta nt ia l, an d

pr ob at iv e ev id en ce on th e reco rd co ns id ered as a who le .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on omi t t e d ).

W e wil l no t rev ers e a fact ua l de te rm in at io n un le ss “ th e reco rd co m pe ls a rev ers al ; th e

2m ere fact th at th e rec or d m ay su pp or t a con tra ry co nc lu si on is no t eno ug h to jus ti fy

a rev ers al of th e ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Ade fem i v. Ash cro ft, 38 6 F.3 d 10 22 , 10 27 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). W he th er an al ie n ha s pr ov ed pe rs ecu ti on is a fa c t u al
d e t erm in at io n th at we rev ie w un de r th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce te st

. Al Najjar v
. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d 12 62 , 12 83 -8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)

. Und er 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i ), th e BIA sh al l no t “ en ga ge in de no vo rev ie w
of fin di ng s of fact de te rm in ed by an im m ig rat io n jud ge .” 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i ).
The BIA m ay on ly rev ie w th e IJ ’s fact ua l de te rm in at io ns to as se ss wh e t h e r t h o se
de te rm in at io ns were cl earl y erro ne ou s. Id

. Fu rth er mo r e, ex cep t fo r ta ki ng
ad m in is tra ti ve no ti ce of co m m on ly kn own fact s, th e BIA is no t pe rm it te d to en ga ge
in fact fin di ng in th e co ur se of de ci di ng ap pe al s. Id

. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i v)

. Howev er, th e
BIA “ m ay

rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w, di sc ret io n, an d jud gm en t an d al l o th er i ss ue s i n

ap pe al s fro m de ci si on s of im m ig rat io n jud ge s de no vo .” Id

. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i i). The

BIA rev ie ws d e no vo whe th er th e es ta bl is he d fact s am ou nt to pa st pe rs ecu ti on or a
well -fo un de d fear of pe rs e c u t io n. Mat te r of A-S-B- , 24 I.&N. Dec. 49 3, 49 6 (BIA

20 08 ). In de te rm in in g whe th er es ta bl is he d fact s a r e s u ffi ci en t to m eet a le ga l

st an da rd , th e BIA “ is en ti tl ed to weig h t he ev id en ce i n a m an ne r di ffer en t from th at

acco rd ed by th e [IJ ], or to co nc lu de th at th e fo un da ti on fo r th e [IJ ’s] le ga l co nc lu si on s

was in su ffi ci en t o r ot he rwis e n ot su pp or te d b y th e ev id en ce o f rec or d.” Id. at 49 7.

3An al ie n who arri ve s in or is pr es en t in th e Uni te d St at es m ay ap pl y fo r as y lu m

.

8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 1)

. To est ab li sh as y lu m el ig ib il it y , th e al ie n m us t, with sp eci fic

an d cred ib le ev id en ce, es ta bl is h (1 ) pa st pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of a st at ut o r i ly

pr ot ect ed gr ou nd , o r (2 ) a “ well -fo un de d fear ” th at th e st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed gr ou nd
wil l cau se su ch fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

. 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a), (b ); Al Najjar, 25 7 F.3 d at
12 87

. An app li can t for asylum who ha s est ab li sh ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on on a pr ot ect ed

gr ou nd is pr es um ed to ha ve a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on on th e ba si s of
th e o rig in al cla im . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) (1 ).

If th e al ie n “ can no t sh ow pa st pe rs ecu ti on , th en th e pe ti ti on er m ust de m onstr at e

a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on th at is bo th su bjec ti v el y ge nu in e an d

o b je c t iv el y reas on ab le .” Ru iz v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 0 F.3 d 12 47 , 12 57 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 06 ). “ The su bjec ti ve co m po ne nt can be pr ov ed b y t h e ap pl ic an t’s cred ib le

te st im on y th at he or sh e ge nu in el y fear s pe rs ecu ti on , whi le th e ob jecti ve co m

po ne nt

can be fu lfi ll ed ei th er by e s t a b l i s h i n g pa st pe rs ecu ti on or th at he or sh e ha s a go od

reas on to fear fut ur e p ers ecu ti on .” Id . (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. The te rm pe rs ecu ti on is no t de f in ed in th e INA or acco m pa nyin g fed eral

reg ul at io ns , bu t we ha ve st at ed th at “p ers ecu ti on is an ex tre m e co nc ep t, req ui rin g

m or e th an a few is ol at ed in ci de nt s of ve rb al ha ras sm en t or in ti m id at io n.” S i l v a v.
U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 8 F.3 d 12 29 , 12 37 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W e ha ve

4he ld th at “ [m ]ino r ph y si cal ab us e” do es no t am ou nt to pe rs ecu ti on

. Kazem zad eh v.

U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 57 7 F.3 d 13 41 , 13 53 (1 1t h C i r

. 2 0 09 ). Howev er, we al so ha ve reject ed a rig id ph y si cal in jury req ui rem en t, no ti ng th at we wil l c o n s i d e r th e

cu m u la ti ve im

pa ct of m is tre at m en t, whi ch co ns id ered al on e, m ay no t am ou nt to

pe rs ecu ti on

. De San ta m ari a v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 52 5 F.3 d 99 9, 10 08 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ).

“ [E]vid en ce t ha t ei th er i s con si st en t with act s o f pr iv at e v io le nc e o r th e p et it io ne r’s
fai lu re to c oo pe rat e wit h g ue rri ll as , or t ha t m erel y sh ows th at a pe rs on ha s b een th e
vi ct im of cri m in al act iv it y , do es no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce of pe rs ecu ti on b as ed on a

st at ut or il y pr ot ect e d gr ou nd .” Ru iz , 44 0 F.3 d at 12 58

. In ad di ti on , “ em pl oym en t
di sc riminat io n whi ch st op s sh or t of dep riv in g an in di vi du al of a m ean s of earn in g a
li vi ng do es no t co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on .” Barr et o- Cl aro v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 27 5 F.3d

13 34 , 13 40 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th at , al th ou gh pe ti ti on er su ffer ed em pl oym en t
di sc rimin a t i o n , l os t hi s job as a ta xi dr iv er, an d was fo rced to ta ke m en ia l wor k, he

was no t p ers ecu te d)

. In th is cas e, th e BIA co ns id ered th e ev i d e n c e su bm it te d in su pp or t of
Kazak ov a’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n an d fo un d th at sh e ha d fai le d to pr es en t fac t s t h a t
le ga ll y am ou nt ed to pa st pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

. As
th e reco rd sh ows , th e BIA di d no t en ga ge in fact fin di ng bu t, rat h e r , c o n s i de red de

no vo whe th er th e fact s in th e reco rd , in cl ud in g th os e in ci de nt s al le ge d in Kazak ov a’s

5cred ib le te st im on y , a m ou nt ed to pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct gro un d, wh ic h

was wit hi n it s pu rv ie w to do

. 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i i); Mat te r of A-S-B- , 24 I.&N.

Dec. at 49 6. In ad di ti on , th e BIA was en ti tl ed to re-wei gh th e ev id en ce as it di d, t o

co nc lu de th at Kazak ov a’s e v i d e n c e was in su ffi ci en t to m eet he r bu rd en of pr oo f to

es ta bl is h a fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

. Mat te r of A-S-B- , 24 I.&N. Dec. at 49 7. Thu s,
th e im po rta nc e th at th e BIA pl aced on po rti on s of a pr of es so r’s te st im on y ov er ot he rs

was no t im

pe rm is si bl e “ ch erry pi ck in g” of fact s by th e BIA, an d th e BIA di d no t err
in it s de no vo co ns id erat io n of whe th er Kazak ov a’s ev id en ce m et th e le ga l st an da rd
of pe rs ecu ti on

. Fu rth erm or e, s u b s t an ti al ev id en ce su pp or ts th e BIA’s de te rm in at io n th at
Kazak ov a fai le d to es ta bl is h pa st pe rs ecu ti on

. Sp eci fic al ly, wit h reg ard to th e at ta ck

on he r hu sb an d on th e st reet an d th e at ta ck on he r da ug ht er by cl as sm at es , th e reco rd
do es no t de m on st rat e th at th es e in ci de nt s were m or e th an is ol at ed act s an d, th eref or e,
di d no t ris e to th e le ve l o f p e r s e c u t i o n

. See Si lv a, 44 8 F.3 d at 12 37

. The at ta ck s,
whi le rep reh en si bl e, al so were no t as se ve re as ot he r in st an ces of op pr es si ve act s th at

we ha ve he ld to co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on

. See Meji a v. Att ’y G en ., 49 8 F.3 d 12 53 , 12 57 -5 8 (1 1t h C i r

. 2 0 0 7) (h ol di ng th at th reat s an d at te m pt ed at ta ck s ov er an 18

-

m on th pe rio d, cu lm in at in g in an at ta ck a t g u n p o i n t du rin g whi ch FARC m em be rs
th reat en ed t h e p et it io ne r an d br ok e hi s no se wit h th e bu tt of a rif le , co ns ti tu te d

6pe rs ecu ti on ); Nift al ie v v. Att ’y Gen ., 50 4 F.3 d 12 11 , 12 17 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng

th at nu m ero us be at in gs , arre st s, se arch es an d in te rro ga ti on s, cu lm in at in g in a 15 -d ay
de te nt io n, cu

m ula tiv el y co nst it ut ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on ); se e al so Kazem zad eh , 57 7 F.3 d

a t 1 3 53 (s ta ti ng th at m in or ph y si cal ab us e do es no t am ou nt to pe rs ecu ti on ). I n
ad di ti on , th e reco rd in di cat es th at th es e at ta ck s were pr iv at e act s of vi ol en ce, whi ch

ge ne ral ly do no t am ou nt to pe rs ecu ti on

. S e e R u i z , 44 0 F.3 d at 12 58

. Si m il arl y , al th ou gh Kazak ov a co ul d no t fin d em pl oym en t as a fas hi on de si gn er, sh e was ab le

to fin d ot he r wor k, su ch th at th e al le ge d em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n di d no t co ns ti tu te

pe rs ecu ti on

. See Barr et o- Cl aro , 27 5 F.3 d at 13 40

. Acco rd in gl y , ta ki ng Kazak ov a’s
al le ga ti on s in th e ag gr eg at e, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or te d th e BIA’s de te rm in at io n
th at th e p et it io ne rs ha d n ot de m on st rat ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on

. Lik ewis e, Kazak ov a di d no t su ffi ci en tl y es ta bl is h a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re

pe rs ecu ti on

. Kazak ov a le ft Est on ia in 19 99

. The go ve rn m en t of fere d ev id en ce fro m
th e 20 08 Co un try Rep or t, whi ch in di cat ed th at th ere was no pa tt ern of hu m an rig ht s
ab us es ag ai ns t et hn ic Ru ss i a n s in Est on ia , an d th at act s of vi ol en ce be twee n th e

e t h n ic gr ou ps were in freq ue nt

. Si nc e th e BIA was en ti tl ed to rel y he av il y o n t h e

co un try rep or t, th e ev id en ce do es no t c o mp e l a rev ers al of th e BIA’s de ci si on th at
Kazak ov a di d no t es ta bl is h a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

. See Djon da v.
U.S

. A t t ’y G e n ., 51 4 F.3 d 11 68 , 11 75 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th at th e BIA is

7en ti tl ed to rel y he av il y on co un try rep or ts , an d th at th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce te st do es

no t al lo w us to rewei gh th e im po rta nc e to be pl aced on a pa rti cu la r co un try rep or t).

All to ld , th e reco rd do es no t co m pe l th e co nc lu si on th at Kazak ov a de m on st rat ed pa st

pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on

. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

8