United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60002

Summary Calendar

Vladimir Bykov, also known as Vladimir N. Bykov, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A076 187 206

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Vladimir Bykov, a native and citizen of Russia, was admitted to the 

United States in 2000, as a nonimmigrant worker with authorization to 

remain for a temporary period not to exceed June 30, 2002. In 2010, he was 

served with a Notice to Appear, charging him with remaining in the United 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60002 Document: 00515764596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-60002

2

States for a time longer than permitted. He has filed a petition seeking review 

of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his 

appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum 

and withholding of removal. He has abandoned, for failure to brief, any 

challenge to the BIA’s denial of protection under the Convention Against 

Torture. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Because the IJ’s decision influenced the BIA’s decision, both 

decisions are reviewable. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). 

We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal 

conclusions de novo. Id.; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Both the IJ and the BIA found that Bykov was not entitled to relief 

because he failed to show that his fear of persecution was objectively 

reasonable. In order to establish that a fear of persecution is objectively 

reasonable, the applicant can show that he would be singled out for 

persecution or that there exists a pattern or practice of persecution of a group

similarly situated. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The crux of Bykov’s claim is that, were he to return to Russia, the 

Russian government would identify him as a scientist who once studied 

nuclear physics, the government would offer him a job in the field of nuclear 

science, he would refuse to accept the job, the government would discover or 

assume that he refused to accept the job due to his pro-democracy political 

opinions, and the government would persecute him due to some combination 

of his refusal to work and his political opinions. However, Bykov presented 

no evidence to support his claim that the Russian government forces similarly 

situated scientists to work for the government and persecutes them if they 

refuse. Thus, he has not shown that his “situation will probably result in 

persecution” or “that persecution is a reasonable probability,” INS 

v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987) (internal quotation marks and 

Case: 20-60002 Document: 00515764596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-60002

3

citation omitted), or that the evidence otherwise compels a result contrary to 

that reached by the IJ and BIA, see Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306.

Accordingly, Bykov has failed to show that he is eligible for asylum. 

See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. He has also failed to meet the higher standard of 

showing that he is entitled to withholding of removal. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 

906. The petition for review is DENIED.

 

Case: 20-60002 Document: 00515764596 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2021