# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 h im with remaining in the United

* Pursuant to **5th Cir**  **cuit R**  **ule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 03/03/2021No. 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 fo r 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 89 9, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).

B oth 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, th e 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 t hat he refused to accept the job due to his pro

- democr a cy 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 , ” I NS

v. Cardoza

- Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987) (internal quotation marks and Case: 20-60002 Document: 00515764596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2021No. 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 th at he i s 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