FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 20, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10091 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 75- 352- 244, A 75- 352- 245 V E R A P R O T S E N K O , J U R I P R O T S E N K O , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r20, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:On 25 November 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( “HSA”) , Pub. L . No. 107-296, 1 116 Stat. 2135, was signe d into law. The HSA a bolished the I

NS and transf

erred it s functions to the newly c re ate d D epartment of

Ho me land

Se curity (“ DH S” ). B e c a

us ethi s c a sewa s initi ate d whil e theI NS w a s stillin existenc e , h ow e ver, thi s opinion wi ll re ferenc etheI

NS rather t

ha n th eDH S. 2 V er a a nd Juri P rot se nk o, proceedi ng pro se, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) a dopt i on a nd a f f i rm a t i on of

the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158 a nd 1231( b) ( 3) , a nd the U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, or D e g r a d in g T r e a tm e n t o rP u n is h m e n t ( “C A T ” ) , 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) . W e AF F I RM . I . B AC KG RO UN D T h e p e titio n e r s , am a rr ie d c o u p le o f R u s s ia n e th n ic ity w h o liv e d in E s to n ia for m ostof thei r l i ves, w er e a dm i tt ed i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es i n A pri l 19 97 as no ni m m i grantvi si t ors. T hey w er e gi ven autho ri za t i on t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s unt i l 30 S e pt e m be r1997. O n 14 M a r c h 2001, the pe t i t i one r s w e r e i s s ue d a not i c e t o appe a r( “ N T A ” ) be f or e a n I J by the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( “ I N S ” ) w hi c h a l l e ge d tha tthe y w e r e c i t i z e ns a nd na t i ve s of R us s i aa nd 1 c h a r g e d th e m w ith r e m o v ab ility . A t th e irp r e lim in a ry h e a r in g b e f o r e th e I J , th e p e titio n e r s , th r o u g h c o u n s e l, c o n c e d e d r e m o v ab ility a n d a d m itte d to th e c h a r g e s s e t f o r th in th e irN T A s , w ith the except i on thatthey deni ed R ussi an ci t i ze nshi p. T hey a ss ert ed thatthey w er e3

bo rn i n the S ov i etU ni on ata t i m e w hen R ussi a w as no tan i nd ependentcoun try and there af

t erl i ved i n E st on i a f

or m any y ea rs . A ft erthe col l apse of the S ov i et U ni on , the pet i t i on er s a l l eged thatthei r app l i ca t i on s f or E st on i an ci t i ze nshi p w er e de ni e d be c a us e the f

a the rof V e r aP r ot s e nko w a s pa r tof the f orm e rS ovi e tU ni on m i l i t ary. T he t em po ra rytra vel do cum ent s i ss ued t o them by the E st on i an gove rnm e nti ndi c a t e d the i rc ountry of c i t i z e ns hi p a s “ X X X . ” A R a t70. A tthe concl usi on of the heari ng , the IJfoun d the pet i t i on er s r em ov abl e, bu tre se rved ru lin g o n th e is s u e o f

th e p e titio n e r s ’ c itiz e n s h ip u n til as u b s e q u e n t h e a r in g . F i na l l y , the I J a s ke d pe t i t i one r s w he the rthe y w a nt e d t o de s i gna t e ac ountry of rem o v ab i l i ty, t o w h i ch th ey resp o n d ed n eg at i v el y. S ubs e que nt l y , pe t i t i one r s s ubm i tt e d a n appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l ba s e d on the pe r s e c ut i on the y s uf f e r e d i n E s t oni aon a c c o u n t o f

th e irr e lig io n , n a tio n a lity , a n d m e m b e r s h ip in ap a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p . T o s uppor the rc l a i m s of pe r s e c ut i on, V e r aP r ot s e nko a l l e ge d, i nt e ra l i a , tha t : ( 1) s he ha d be e n pe r s e c ut e d f orhe rC hr i s t i a n O r thodox f a i th, apr om i ne ntf

a i th a m ong e thni c R us s i a ns , by the E s t oni a n gove rnm e ntw hi c h r e f us e d t o r e c ogni z e the C h ri st i an O rth o d o x rel i g i o n ; (2 ) E st o n i an l aw d en o m i n at edh er a fo rei g n er b ecau se she w as of R ussi an nat i on al i ty a nd hi nd er ed her f rom att ai ni ng E st on i an c i t i z e ns hi p; ( 3) s he ha d be e n f i r e d f r om he rj ob a s at e a c he rba s e d on he rl a c k of E st on i an ci t i ze nshi p; (4) s he and h erfa m i l y had been the vi ct i m s of hat e c ri m es as4

a n ti- R u s s ia n E s to n ia n s b u r g la r iz e d th e irh o m e tw ic e , a n d s p r a y e d r e d s ta r s o n th e ir h o m e in o n e s u c h in c id e n t; a n d ( 5 ) o n 2 3 J a n u a ry 1 9 9 7 , th e K a its e lit, a n a n tiR ussi an parami l i t ary group , beatJuri because of hi s s t atus as a f orm erS ov i et m i l i t a ry of

f i c e r . I n s uppor tof

the s e c l a i m s , the pe t i t i one r s s ubm i tt e d va r i ous do cum ent at i on , i ncl ud i ng : ho spi t al re cords w hi ch i nd i ca t ed thatJuri w as tre at ed at ahos pi t a l f

ori nj ur i e s a f

t e rthe J a nua ry 1997 i nc i de nt ; ac e r t i f i c a t e f r om the E st o n i an g o v ern m en td en yi n g V era E st o n i an ci t i zen sh i p an d p erm an en tresi d en cy; ce rt i fi ca t es fr om the R ussi an em bass y w hi ch i nd i ca t ed there w as no re cord p e titio n e r s w e r e c itiz e n s o f R u s s ia ; J u r i’s f

o rm e rm ilita ry id e n tif

ic a tio n c a r d ; a ce rt i fi ca t e f

rom V er a’ s e m pl oyerw hi ch i nd i ca t ed she w as t erm i nat ed fr om her t e a c hi ng pos i t i on due t o a“ l a c k of pe da gogi c a l e duc a t i on, ” A R 208, a nd va r i ous n e w s p ap e ra r tic le s w h ic h d o c u m e n te d d is c r im in a tio n o f e th n ic R u s s ia n s liv in g in E st on i a. In re spon se , the go vernm entsubm i tt ed the 20 00 U ni t ed S t at es D e pa r tm e ntof

S t a t e C ountry R e por t s on H um a n R i ght s P r a c t i c e s f orE s t oni aa nd R ussi a. T he C ou ntryR eportfor E st on i a not ed thatform erS ov i etm i l i t ary off i ce rs a n d th e irf

a m ilie s a r e o f

te n p r e c lu d e d f

r o m o b ta in in g E s to n ia n c itiz e n s h ip . E st o n i an n atu ral i zat i o n l aw s w ere, h o w ev er, i n l i n e w i th i n t ern at i o n al st an d ard s, a c c or di ng t o the r e por t . M or e ove r , a l though e thni c R us s i a ns of t e n c om pl a i ne d of di sc ri m i nat ory tre atm enti n the w orkp l ac e a nd i n l i vi ng cond i t i on s, the E st on i an C o u n try r e p o r t s ta te d th a t f o r e ig n g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls m o n ito r in g th e s itu a tio n in5

E st on i a f ou nd no such patt ern o f hum an ri gh t s vi ol at i on s. T he R ussi an C ou ntry R eporti nd i ca t ed thati m m i grant s w i th a l egal cl ai m t o R ussi an ci t i ze nshi p o ft en ha ve di f f i c ul ty e m i gr a t i ng t o R us s i af r om f orm e rS ovi e tr e publ i c s a nd obt a i ni ng R us s i a n c i t i z e ns hi p. A t th e r e m o v a l h e a r in g s , th e p e titio n e r s p r o v id e d te s tim o n y to b u ttr e s s th e ir asyl u m ap p l i cat i o n . P art i cu l arl y, V era P ro t sen k o t est i fi ed th atsh e w as st at el ess be c a us e E s t oni a n l a w ha d de c l a r e d tha ta ny one notr e s i di ng i n E s t oni abe f or e 1940 w a s af or e i gne r , a nd be c a us e the E s t oni a n gove rnm e ntha d de ni e d he rappl i c a t i ons for c i t i ze nshi p fou r t i m es . S he adm i tt ed thatshe had no tappl i ed for R ussi an c i t i z e ns hi p be c a us e s he ha d l i ve d i n E s t oni ahe re nt i r e l i f e a nd w oul d ha ve di ff i cul ty obt ai ni ng R ussi an re si dency permi t s a nd l i vi ng i n R ussi a w i tho utany t i es t o the a r e a . V e r aa l s o t e s t i f i e d tha ts he ha d be e n at e a c he rf ors e ve r a l y e a r s , but w as t erm i nat ed because she l ac ked the prop ereducat i on . S he st at ed thatthi s w as j ustan excuse t o fi re her, ho w ever , and thatthe re al re as on for hert erm i nat i on w as he rpa r t i c i pa t i on i n at e a c he r ’ s uni on a nd he rr e l uc t a nc e t o s uppor tthe s c hool a dm i ni s tr a t or s ’ pl a n t o r api dl y “ E s t oni a ni z e ” the e duc a t i on s y s t e m i n pl a c e of the ol d R ussi an sy st em . V er a a dm i tt ed, ho w ever , thatno tal l R ussi an t ea cher s a ther s c h o o l w e r e te rm in a te d . I n a d d itio n , V e r ate s tif ie d th a t s h e p a r tic ip a te d in dem on stra t i on s t o fi gh tre l i gi ou s a nd ant i -R ussi an pers ec ut i on , and thatshe had b e e n a rr e s te d a n d d e ta in e d f o rtw e n ty - f

o u rh o u r s d u r in g o n e s u c h d e m o n s tr a tio n .6

F i nal l y, V er a t es t i fi ed thatshe a nd her f am i l y w er e t ar get ed by an ant i -R ussi an y outh gr oup on tw o s pe c i f i c oc c a s i ons . I n J a nua ry 1993, s he t e s t i f i e d tha tagr oup o f y o u th b u r g la r iz e d th e irh o m e a n d le f t a n ti- c o m m u n is t g r a f

f iti o n th e irw a lls . A l though pol i c e i nve s t i ga t e d the bur gl a ry , s he t e s t i f i e d tha tthe y di d notr e por tor i nve s t i ga t e the a nt i - R us s i a n ha t e c r i m e a s pe c tof the i nc i de nt . S he t e s t i f i e d tha tthe s a m e gr oup bur gl a r i z e d he rf a m i l y ’ s s um m e rr e s i de nc e i n 1995, buts he di d not r e p o r t th e c r im e b e c a u s e s h e f e lt th a t th e p o lic e w o u ld n o t h a v e h e lp e d h e r . T he I J the n r e nde r e d ade c i s i on de ny i ng the pe t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i on f or a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd C A T pr ot e c t i on. A l though the I J f ound V e r a ’s te s tim o n y c r e d ib le , s h e a ls o f o u n d th a t th e p e titio n e r s f a ile d to m e e t th e ir bu rden of show i ng el i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um or C A T prot ec t i on . S peci fi ca l l y, the IJ no t ed thati tappeare d as tho ug h the pet i t i on er s had been vi ct i m i ze d and suff er ed i sol at ed i nci dent s of di sc ri m i nat i on , bu tno tt o the ext entnece ss ary t o sho w that they had suff

er ed pastpers ec ut i on . T he IJfoun d thati tw as no tenou gh thatV er a h a d lo s t h e rjo b , n o tin g th a t th e s ta te d r e a s o n f o rh e rte rm in a tio n w a s th a t V e r ad id n o t h a v e ad e g r e e in e d u c a tio n , w h ic h s h e h a d a d m itte d w a s tru e . W ith r e g a r d to Juri ’ s bea t i ng i nci dent , the IJfoun d that , al tho ug h i tw as “ re prehensi bl e, ” i tw as , at m os t , a n i s ol a t e d i nc i de ntr e s ul t i ng f r om a n E s t oni a n “ ba c kl a s h” a ga i ns tthe R ussi an m i l i t ary occ up at i on pri or t o E st on i a gai ni ng i t s i nd ependence. A R at 59- 60. T he I J pr oc e e de d t o not e tha tthe pe t i t i one r s w e r e “ notj us ti nnoc e nt7

R ussi an se tt l er s i n the ar eafor E st on i a, ” but , ra ther both Juri and V er a’ s f ather

“ w e r e m e m be r s of

the m i l i t a ry s e rvi ng w ha tE s t oni anow s e e s a s the f or e i gn e n e m y . A n d n o w th e y ’r e b a s ic a lly p a y in g th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th a t.” A R a t 6 0 . W i th r e ga r d t o R us s i abe i ng the c ountry of r e m ova l , the I J not e d tha tthe pe t i t i one r s w e r e e thni c R us s i a ns a nd f ound tha ti tw a s “ unr e a s onabl e ” f orthe pe t i t i one r s t o c l a i m tha tthe y ha d no r oot s ort i e s t o R us s i aw he n the s a m e c oul d be s a id ab o u t th e ird e c is io n to ap p ly f o ra s y lu m in th e U n ite d S ta te s . A R a t a t 6 1 . T he I J c onc l ude d tha tthe pe t i t i one r s ha d a“ duty t o a va i l the m s e l ve s of the ci t i ze nshi p and prot ec t i on of” R ussi a. A R at62 . In sum , because pet i t i on er s had e s tab lis h e d th a t th e y s u f f e r e d f r o m a“le v e l o f

d is c r im in a tio n a n d n o th in g m o r e ,” the IJdeni ed the pet i t i on er s’ appl i ca t i on for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al an d o rd ered th em rem o v ed t o th e R u ssi an F ed erat i o n , o r al t ern at i v el y, i n th e case of V e r a , t o E s t oni a . A R a t63. P et i t i on er s, throu gh coun se l , appeal ed the IJ ’ s dec i si on t o the B IA . T hey a r gue d tha tthe I J e rr e d be c a us e : ( 1) s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t e d the i ra s y l um cl ai m s; (2) they w er e i m prop er l y order ed re m ov ed t o R ussi a; and (3) the IJ expres se d a po l i t i ca l bi as by sugg es t i ng thatany a nt i -R ussi an di sc ri m i nat i on they suff er ed w as dese rved aft erE st on i a gai ned i t s i nd ependence. T he B IA af fi rm ed the I J ’ s de c i s i on tha tpe t i t i one r s ha d f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um a nd di sm i ss ed thei r c l ai m s of e rr or.Be causethe petitioner’s removal procee dings commence d after 1 April 1997, the ef fec tive 2 dateof theI lle g al Immi gratio n Re fo rm and Immi gra nt Re sp on sib ility

Ac t of 19 96 (“ IIRIRA ” ), thi s caseis governed by

the per manent p ro v i s i o n s of the I NA, as a

mended by

IIRIRA. See Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Att’y Gen., 321 F .3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 8 O n ap p e a l, th e p e titio n e r s m a k e th r e e a r g u m e n ts th a t th e B I A ’s o r d e rs h o u ld b e r ev er se d . F irst, th ey ar g u e th at su b stan ti al ev id en ce d o es n o t su p p o rt th e I J’s f i ndi ng tha tthe y f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A . S ec on d, they a rgue thatthei r due process ri gh t s w er e v io la te d b e c a u s e th e I J d id n o t g iv e th e m n o tic e th e y c o u ld b e r e m o v e d to R u s s ia an d b ecau se th e IJ’ s co m m en t s b etrayed an an t i -R u ssi an p o l i t i cal b i as. W e ad d ress e a c h a r g u m e n t in tu rn . I I . DI S CUS S I ON 2 A . D eni al of A sy l um and W i thh ol di ng of R em ov al “W e r e v ie w o n ly th e [ B I A ’s ] d e c is io n , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e x p r e s s ly adop t s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . Insofa r a s the [B IA ] adop t s the IJ ’ s r ea soni ng , w e r evi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on as w el l . ” N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 2001) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . H e r e , be c a us e the B I A c onc urr e d w i th the I J ’ s f i ndi ngs and reas on i ng , w e r evi ew bo th the IJ ’ s a nd B IA ’ s dec i si on s. W e r evi ew l egal det erm i nat i on s de nov o. M oh am m ed v. A shcr oft , 26 1 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e B I A ’s a n d I J ’s f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n th a t a n a lie n is n o t e n title d to w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l m u s t b e u p h e ld if it is s u p p o r te db y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .9

N ajj ar, 2 5 7 F . 3 d at1 2 8 3 . T o rev erse th e IJ’ s d eci si o n , a rev i ew i n g co u rtm u st c o n c l u d e th a tth e r e c o r d n o to n l y s u p p o r t s s u c h ac o n c l u s i o n , b u tc o m p e l s i t . I NS v. E l i as -Z ac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . 47 8, 48 1 n . 1, 11 2 S . C t . 81 2, 81 5 n . 1 (19 92 ). T he I N A pr ovi de s the A tt orne y G e ne r a l w i th the di s c r e t i on t o gr a nta s y l um t o an o therw i se re m ov abl e a l i en. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)(1)(A ). T he A tt orney G e ne r a l m a y e xe r c i s e s uc h di s c r e t i on upon f i ndi ng tha tthe a l i e n i s a“ r e f uge e . ” I d. A ‘ re fugee’ i s ‘ any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such p erso n ’ s n at i o n al i ty o r, i n th e case o f a p erso n h av i n g n o n at i o n al i ty, i s out s i de a ny c ountry i n w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f

orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountry be c a us e of [ pa s t ] pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n . . . .’ D - M uhum e d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 388 F . 3d 814, 818 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ) . T he bur de n of pr oof i s on the appl i c a ntf

or a s y l um t o e s t abl i s h tha the ors he i s ar e f uge e . I d. T o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, an “ extre m e c on ce pt , ” the as yl um appl i ca ntm ustshow “ m ore than a few i sol at ed in cid en ts o f v erb al h ar as sm en t o r in ti m id atio n ,” S ep u lv ed a v . U n it ed S tates A tt ’y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed) ( fi nd i ng on e bom bi ng t ar get ed atthe as yl um appl i ca ntand three th reat en i n g t el ep h o n e cal l s i n su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh p astp ersecu t i o n ). T o est ab l i sh a“ w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on” t o qua l i f

y f ora s y l um , the a l i e n m us tpr e s e nt10

“ spec i fi c, det ai l ed fa ct s s ho w i ng a goo d rea son t o fea r thathe or she w i l l be si ng l ed outf orpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof [ hi s orhe rna t i ona l i ty ] . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . W he r e a n a l i e n ha s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um , the a l i e n l i ke w i s e ha s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe IN A or C A T . N re ka v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt ’ y G en. , 40 8 F . 3d 13 61 , 13 69 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). B a s e d on the f

or e goi ng pr e c e de nt , w e c onc l ude tha tthe r e c or d doe s not c om pe l ar e ve r s a l of

the B I A ’ s or de r . W i th r e ga r d t o the l os s of V e r a ’ s j ob, the re cord dem on stra t es thatthe st at ed re as on for hert erm i nat i on — her l ac k o f a n e duc a t i on de gr e e — ha d af a c tua l ba s i s w hi c h V e r aa dm i tt e d. M or e ove r , s he adm i tt ed thatshe w as no tsupp ort i ve of the sc ho ol ’ s pl an t o chang e i t s e du ca t i on al sy st em fr om the ol d R ussi an sy st em and thatother e thn i c R ussi an t ea cher s w er e n o t f ir e d . T h u s , d e s p ite h e ra lle g a tio n s o f p r e te x t, th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l a fi nd i ng contra ryt o the on e r ea ched by the IJand the B IA . In addi t i on , w i th regard t o the tw o i nc i de nt s i n w hi c h the P r ot s e nkos ’ hom e w a s bur gl a r i z e d a nd the one i nci denti n w hi ch Juri w as beat en, the re cord do es no tdem on stra t e thatthese w er e m ore than i sol at ed ac t s a nd there fore di d n otri se t o the l evel of pers ec ut i on . S ee S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at12 31 . M oreover, i n l i gh tof the fa ct s thatE st on i an po l i ce i nve s t i ga t e d the f

i r s ti nc i de ntof

bur gl a ry a f

t e rbe i ng c a l l e d by the P r ot s e nkos , a nd tha tJ ur i w a s tr e a t e d f

ori nj ur i e s by a n E s t oni a n hos pi t a l , the r e c or d doe s not11

d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e E s to n ia n g o v e rn m e n t h a d r e f u s e d to p r o te c t th e P r o ts e n k o s . A ddi t i ona l l y , the f

a c ttha tV e r aw a s de t a i ne d a f t e rpa r t i c i pa t i ng i n ade m ons tr a t i on doe s notc om pe l ac ontr a ry f i ndi ng on the i s s ue of

pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. S e e R oj a s v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt ’ y G en. , 13 4 F ed. A pp x. 33 0, 33 4-35 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( one i nc i de ntof s hor t - t e rm gove rnm e ntde t e nt i on a l ong w i th thr e a t e ni ng t e l e phone c a l l s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o c ons t i tut e pa s tpe r s e c ut i on) . A c c or di ngl y , t a ki ng these al l egat i on s i n the aggregat e, w e c on cl ud e thatsubst ant i al evi dence s up po rt ed th e IJ’ s an d th e B IA ’ s d et erm i n at i o n th atth e p et i t i o n ers h ad n o td em o n strat ed p ast pe r s e c ut i on. L i ke w i s e , w e c onc l ude the pe t i t i one r s di d nots uf f i c i e nt l y e s t abl i s h a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . A l tho ug h they w er e a l l egedl y deni ed ci t i ze nshi p and re si dency f ou r t i m es , they di d n otdem on stra t e thatthe E st on i an g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld d e c lin e to p r o te c t th e irr ig h ts b e c a u s e o f th e irR u s s ia n e th n ic ity . M oreover, the go vernm entoffe re d evi dence fr om the E st on i an C ou ntryR eport w h ic h in d ic a te d th a t th e r e w a s n o p a tte rn o f h u m a n r ig h ts ab u s e s a g a in s t e th n ic R u s s ia n s in E s to n ia , a n d th a t p r o g r a m s e x is te d f o rin te g r a tin g e th n ic R u s s ia n s in to E s to n ia . S e e G o n a h a s av . I N S , 1 8 1 F .3 d 5 3 8 , 5 4 2 ( 4 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( “A S ta te D e pa r tm e ntr e por ton c ountry c ondi t i ons i s hi ghl y pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e i n a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arca se . ”) . In addi t i on , the IJno t ed thatV er a’ s par ent s a nd her br othe r , now a n E s t oni a n c i t i z e n, s t i l l l i ve i n E s t oni a , a nd y e tthe r e c or d doe s not r e f l e c ttha tthe y s uf

f e r e d a ny pe r s e c ut i on. S e e T a w m v. A s hc r of t , 363 F . 3d 740,12

74 3 (8th C i r. 20 04 ) ( fi nd i ng thatan al i en di d n otes t abl i sh a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar w h e r e , in te ra lia , th e a lie n ’s f a m ily c o n tin u e d to liv e in L e b a n o n w ith o u t in c id e n t) . T h u s , b e c a u s e th e p e titio n e r s f a ile d to e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f th e ir ethn i ci ty or aw el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof future per se cut i on , subst ant i al evi dence supp ort ed the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatthey w er e notent i t l ed t o asy l um . M oreover, b e c a u s e th e y c o u ld n o t e s tab lis h e lig ib ility f o ra s y lu m , th e B I A a n d I J p r o p e r ly r e f u s e d p e titio n e r s ’ c la im s f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. N r e k a , 4 0 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 9 . B . D u e P ro cess V i o l at i o n s W e r evi ew de no vo an as yl um appl i ca nt ’ s c l ai m thatdu e proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol a t e d dur i ng r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . L ony e m v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 352 F . 3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (p er cu ri am ). T o p rev ai l o n a d u e p ro cess c ha l l e nge t o the s uf

f i c i e nc y of

r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , a n a l i e n m us ts how tha tthe d u e p ro cess v i o l at i o n cau sed su b st an t i al p rej u d i ce, w h i ch typ i cal l y req u i res a s how i ng tha tthe out c om e w oul d ha ve di f f e r e d ha d the due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on not oc c urr e d. S e e I br a hi m v. I N S , 821 F . 2d 1547, 1550 ( 11th C i r . 1987) . H e r e , the P r ot s e nkos a r gue tha tthe i rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d be c a us e the y w e r e not gi ven n ot i ce thatthey c ou l d b e r em ov ed t o R ussi a a nd because of the IJ ’ s a l l eged an t i -R u ssi an b i as. 1. N ot i ce of R em ov al t o R ussi a13

A l i e ns a r e e nt i t l e d t o the F i f th A m e ndm e nt ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s dur i ng de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs . R e no v. F l or e s , 507 U . S . 292, 306, 113 S . C t . 1439, 1449 (1 9 9 3 ). T h e F i fth A m en d m en t ’ s g u aran t ee o f “ [d ] u e p ro cess i s sat i sfi ed o n l y b y a ful l and fai r hea ri ng . ” I brahi m , 82 1 F . 2d at15 50 . A fa i r hea ri ng occurs w hen ap p lic a n ts a r e g iv e n n o tic e o f th e h e a r in g a n d a n o p p o r tu n ity to b e h e a r d . S e e A n in v. R e no, 188 F . 3d 1273, 1277 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . C ourt s ha ve f ound due pr oc e s s w a s vi ol a t e d w he r e a n a s y l um appl i c a ntw a s notgi ve n pr ope rnot i c e of a pot ent i al coun tryof depo rt at i on and sub se qu ent l y w as ordered re m ov ed t o that coun try . S ee K ossov v . IN S , 13 2 F . 3d 40 5, 40 8 (7th C i r. 19 98 ). B a s e d on the f

or e goi ng pr e c e de nt , w e c onc l ude tha tpe t i t i one r s ’ a r gum e nt aboutal a c k of

not i c e the yc oul d be de por t e d t o R us s i ai s w i thoutm e r i t . T he r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tw he n a s ke d t o na m e ac ountry of de por t a t i on a tthe i rhe a r i ng b e f o r e th e I J , th e P r o te s e n k o s d e c lin e d to n a m e ap a r tic u la rc o u n try . N otw i thst andi ng thi s, the go vernm entsubm i tt ed a S t at e D epartm entC ou ntry R e por tf orR us s i aa nd the r e w e r e e xt e nde d c ol l oqui e s i n the r e c or d aboutthe pet i t i on er s’ t i es t o R ussi a a nd thei r i nt er ac t i on s w i th the R ussi an go vernm ent . In addi t i on , aton e poi nti n the re cord, the i ss ue of deno m i nat i ng R ussi a a s apo t ent i al c ountry of

de por t a t i on w a s di s c us s e d. S e e A R a t81. M or e ove r , V e r aP r ot s e nko w as offe re d an o pp ortun i ty t o d i sc uss w hy R ussi a w ou l d n otbe a s ui t abl e c ou ntry of de por t a t i on. S e e A R a t96- 98. A c c or di ngl y , i n c ontr a s tt o the f a c t s i n K os s ov,In additi on , th epetition ersarguethat th eIJ er re d in makingit s rem ov al order b e c a us eit 3 failed to determine fir st whether they were “state less.” B eca use a f inding on the issue of statelessness would not haveimpacted the a nalysis of petitioners’ asylum applications, see Na jjar F.3d at 1295, this argument is without m erit. 14 the re cord i n thi s c as e r evea l s thatthe pet i t i on er s w er e gi ven am pl e not i ce and an o p p o r tu n ity to b e h e a r d o n th e is s u e o f R u s s iaa s ap o te n tia l c o u n try o f d e p o r ta tio n . T hu s, w e r ej ec tthe pet i t i on er s’ ar gu m entthatthei r due process ri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed b y th e p u rp o r te d f

a ilu r e to n o tif

y th e m th a t th e y c o u ld b e d e p o r te d to R u s s ia . A dd i t i on al l y, w e not e thatw hen an al i en re fuse s t o d es i gn at e are m ov al coun try , as i n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the A tt orne y G e ne r a l ha s “ ve ry br oa d di s c r e t i on” i n s pe c i f y i ng the c ountry t o w hi c h the a l i e n w i l l be s e nt . N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1295. B e c a us e the pe t i t i one r s w e r e or de r e d r e m ove d t o ac ountry pur s ua ntt o the r e gul a t i ons e s tab lis h e d b y 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( E ) , th e I J d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in de nom i na t i ng R us s i aa s the c ountry of de por t a t i on. 3 2. IJ ’ s A l l eged B i as A s w e n o ted p re v io u sly, d u e p ro ce ss re q u ires th at p etit io n er s a re af fo rd ed “a f ul l a nd f a i rhe a r i ng. ” I br a hi m , 821 F . 2d a t1550. C our t s ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tdue proces s guara nt ee s thatpet i t i on er s i n rem ov al proceedi ng s “ ar e e nt i t l ed t o an unbi a s e d a rbi t e rw ho ha s notpr e j udge d the i rc l a i m s . ” A hm e d v. G onz a l e s , 398 F . 3d 722, 725 ( 6th C i r . 2005) . D ue pr oc e s s i s vi ol a t e d w he n a n I J aba ndons the rol e of neutra l fa ct fi nd erand b ec om es a part i sa n adv ocat e i n the proceedi ng s. S ee15

R ey es -M elen d ez v . IN S , 3 4 2 F .3 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 6 -0 7 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W h er e th e I J’s i nqui ry a nd s t a t e m e nt s a r e s uppor t e d by the r e c or d, how e ve r , the r e i s no due p r o c e s s v io la tio n . S e e id . B a s e d on the f

or e goi ng, w e r e

j e c tpe t i t i one r s ’ due pr oc e s s c l a i m r e ga r di ng the IJ ’ s bi as . In char ac t er i zi ng the al l eged att ac ks on pet i t i on er s by a nt i -R ussi an gr oups , the I J not e d tha tthe s e e ve nt s s t e m m e d f r om a“ ba c kl a s h” by E s t oni a ns new l y i nd ependentfr om the S ov i etre gi m e. R ather than sho w i ng a bi as on the part of the IJ , thi s c hara ct er i za t i on of event s f i nd s s up po rti n the re cord i n the C ou ntry R eportfor E st on i a. S ee A R 17 2-73 . M oreover, i n con tra stt o si tuat i on i n w hi ch th e I J r e v e a le d its b ia s b y a g g r e s s iv e ly q u e s tio n in g a n a s y lu m ap p lic a n t, s e e , e .g ., R ey es -M el endez, 34 2 F . 3d at10 07 , the re cord do es no tdem on stra t e thatthe IJ a c tiv e ly q u e s tio n e d th e p e titio n e r s o ra s s u m e d th e r o le o f ap a r tis a n a d v o c a te . M o reo v er, assu m i n g th e IJ’ s co m m en t s co u l d b e co n stru ed as a d u e p ro cess v io la tio n , p e titio n e r s h a v e f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th e y w e r e s u b s ta n tia lly p r e ju d ic e d . B ec ause pet i t i on er s c on ce ded rem ov abi l i ty, and b ec ause w e have det erm i ned that s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e di d s uppor tthe I J ’ s de ni a l of the i ra s y l um appl i c a t i on, pe t i t i one r s c a nnots how the out c om e w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nti n the abs e nc e of a n y d u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e r e je c t p e titio n e r s ’ d u e p r o c e s s c la im r e g a r d in g th e I J ’s p u rp o r te d b ia s . I I I . CONCL US I ON16

O n ap p ea l, V er a a n d Ju ri P ro tsen k o p etit io n ed fo r r ev iew o f th e B IA ’s a f f i rm a t i on of

the I J ’ s or de rde ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng o f r em o v al an d d irec ti n g th eir r em o v al to R u ss ia. A s w e h av e e x p lain ed , th e I J’s d e n i a l o f th e i ra s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n wa s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a n d we d i scern n o rev ersi b l e d u e p ro cess v i o l at i o n s i n th e rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s. A cc ordi ng l y, the P E T I T I ON i s D EN I ED .