20

- 1941 Petrova v. Garland BIA Conroy , IJ A 202 042 704/05 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**


## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY**  **ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED**  **AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT**  = **S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APP**  **ENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **” ). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.** 
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at t**  **he Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 24**  **th day**  **of January**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**** 4 **t hree** 

**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN ,**  8 **M YRNA PÉREZ**  **,** 9 **ALISON J. NATHAN ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **ANGELINA PETROVA, ILIA** 14 **GURASPISHVILI ,**  15 **Petitioner s**  **,** 16 17
**v. 20** 

**- 1941**  18 **NAC** 19 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 20 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 **Respondent**

**.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER S**  **:** Alexander J. Segal , Esq. , New 25 York, NY

. 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant 282 Attorney General ; Kohsei Ugumori , 1 Holly M. Smith , Senior Litigation 2 Counsel , Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 D C. 6
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 9

is DENIED

. 10

Petitioner s Angelina Petrova and Ilia Guraspishvili , 11

citizen s of Georgia , seek review of a May 27, 2020 decision 12

of the BIA affirming a July 12, 2018 decision of an 13
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Petrova’s application for 14
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) , 1 on which Guraspishvili 16
was listed as a derivative asylum applicant

. In re Angelina 17

Petrova, Ilia Guraspishvili , No s . A 202 042 704/05 (B.I.A. May 18

27, 2020 ), aff’g No s . A 202 042 704/05 (Immig r . Ct. N.Y.C

. 19
July 12, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20
underlying facts and procedural history. 21

1 Petrova does not raise her CAT claim in this court or challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand.3 **Standard of Review** 1

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 2
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 3

Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 4
factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 5

law de novo. See Pan v. Ho lder , 777 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 6

2015). Under the substantial evidence standard, 7
“administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 8
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 9
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. 10
**Legal Standard**  11
To establish eligibility for asylum, a n applicant must 12

establish that he or she has suffered past persecution or has 13

a well

- founded fear of future persecution and that “race, 14
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 15
group, or poli tical opinion was or will be at least one 16
central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. 17

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). “To qualify as 18
persecution [,] the conduct at issue must be attributable to 19
the government [of the country of remo val] , whether directly 20
because engaged in by government officials, or indirectly 214 because engaged in by private persons whom the government is 1

unable or unwilling to control.” Scarlett v. Barr , 957 F.3d 2
316, 328 (2d Cir. 2020) ( internal quotation marks omitted). 3

“ Under the unwilling

- or - unable standard, a finding of 4
persecution ordinarily requires a determination that 5
government authorities, if they did not actually perpetrate 6
or incite the persecution, condoned it or at least 7
demonstrated a comple te helplessness to protect the 8

victims.” Singh v. Garland , 11 F.4th 106, 114

– 15 (2d Cir. 9

2021) ( internal quotation marks omitted). 10

**Discussion** 11
Petrova challenges two findings by the agency. As 12
relevant to past persecution , she challenges the finding that 13

she failed to meet her burden of show ing that the Georgian 14
government was unwilling or unable to protect her. As 15

relevant to her well

- founded fear of future persecution , she 16
challenges the finding that her alleged persec utor s w ere 17
motivated by criminal desires rather than her ethnicity. We 18

conclude that s ubstantial evidence supports both of the 19
agency’s challenged findings , and accordingly, we deny the 20
petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. 215 **I. Past**  **Persecution** 1

Petrova claimed that Guraspishvili’s ethnically Georgian 2
family abused her on account of her Russian ethnicity , and 3

that such abuse was indirectly attributable to the Georgian 4
government because it was unable or unwilling to protect her. 5

The agency found that Petrova did not establish that Georgian 6
authorities were unwilling or unable to protect her , citing 7

(1) the fact that she had never reported the abuse by 8
Guraspishvili ’s family to the police and (2) the 9

insufficien cy of evidence substantiating Petrova’s belief 10
that the police would be unwilling to intervene. A n 11
applicant’s failure to report mistreatment is not fatal to 12
her application , but absent such reporting , there must be 13
other evidence establishing the government’s unwillingness or 14
inability to protect. See Pan , 777 F.3d at 544

– 45. Petrova 15
did not produce country

- conditions evidence addressing police 16
responses to reports of violence, much less evidence that the 17
police treat ethnic Russians differently than other v ictims. 18

Therefore, we are not “ compelled to conclude to the contrary” 19
of the agency’s determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. 206 **II. Future**  **Persecution** 1

Petrova argues that the agency failed to consider the 2
harm her father had experienced at the hands of Shalva 3
Obgaidze and Georgian government officials as evidence that 4
the authorities would be unwilling to protect her from future 5
persecution

. The agency did consider this evidence, b ut 6
expressly found that Obgaidze’s threats to Petrova ’s family 7

were not indicative of Georgian authorities’ unwillingness or 8
inability to protect Petrova from persecution of ethnic 9

Russians . Indeed, Obgaidze himself appears to have been 10
motivated by his desire to take over Petrova’s father’s 11
business, rather than any animus related to her family’s 12
membership in a group of “highly successful ethnic Russians

. ” 13

Certified Admin. Record at 100

– 01 ; see, e.g. , Pucha 14

Quituizaca v. Garland , 52 F.4th 103, 115 (2d Cir. 2022) 15

( upholding agency’s finding that , when asylum applicant was 16

robbed by gang members of a different ethnicity, there was a 17

“ greater probability that the gang was motivated to harm him 18

based on [the pecuniary] incentives presented to ordinary 19
criminals[,] rather than [ethnically motivated] persecution ” 20
(internal quotation marks omitted))

. Letters from Petrova ’s 217 father and broth er describe Obgaidze ’s action s against them 1
as part of his effort to take over their businesses. The 2
only evidence that Obgaidze was motivated by the family’s 3
Russian ethnicity is the testimony from Petrova and her 4

brother. But neither provided a reason why they believed the 5
harm was on account of their ethnicity, and Petrova did not 6
submit any evidence to corroborate that belief

. See INS v. 7

Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (requiring “ some 8
evidence” of motive, either “direct o r circumstantial”). 9

The record further supports the agency’s conclusion that 10

Petrova failed to establish that the Georgian police

– either 11

due to Obgaidze ’s influence or otherwise

– would be unwilling 12
or unable to protect her . In fact, Petrova offered no 13
evidence that the police persecute ethnic Russians or stand 14
by while they are abused by others

. T o be sure, t he evidence 15

includes reports of anti

- Russian sentiment in Georgia n 16
society at large , but those reports no where indi cat e that 17
police are targeting individuals on account of their 18
ethnicity or refusing to aid ethnic Russians who seek police 19
protection

. Accordingly, we do not disturb the agency ’s 20

f i nd ing that Petrova did not establish past persecution or a 218 well

- founded fear of future persecution

. S ee Singh , 11 F.4th 1

at 114

– 15. 2
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review i s 3

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 4

stays VACATED. 5

FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 7 Clerk of Court 8 9