2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-12-2013

Mariana Macari v. Attorney General United States

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-2200

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Mariana Macari v. Attorney General United States" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1477.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1477
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2200

___________

MARIANA MACARI; MOKHTAR BEN 

AMARA; SABRI BEN AMARA,

Petitioners

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency Nos. A087-469-117, A087-469-118, A087-469-119)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Miriam K. Mills

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 16, 2013

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 12, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Mariana Macari, Mokhtar Ben Amara and Sabri Ben Amara petition for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal. We will deny the 

petition.

I.
2

Macari is the lead petitioner, and the claims of Mokhtar and Sabri Amara (her 

husband and son, respectively) are derivative of hers. Macari is an ethnic Russian citizen 

of Moldova who concedes that she is removable for overstaying her visa. Before coming 

to the United States, she relocated to Italy, met her husband there, and lived there for 

several years. Her claims arise from an assault she suffered in 2008 when she returned to 

Moldova to visit her mother, to which she testified before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”).

Macari testified that, while walking home through a park one evening in Moldova, 

she encountered a group of seven men, two of whom she recognized as neighbors of hers 

in Italy. Over the course of half an hour, the men tripped her, kicked her, twisted a 

broken beer bottle into her back, mocked her, urinated on her and stole her purse. (A.R. 

177-81.) They also told her to leave Moldova because she is ethnically Russian. (A.R. 

184.) After Macari came to the United States, her mother told her that the same men had 

come looking for her twice because they could not locate her in Italy. (A.R. 187.) When 

asked why the men were looking for her, she testified that “[i]t’s all about money” 

because “[a]t the time of assault me they announced . . . your husband owe us money, a 

ransom. They racketeers in Italy. They extort money.” (A.R. 188.) 

On the basis of these circumstances, Macari applied for asylum, withholding of 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), arguing that she faces 

persecution in Moldova on account of her Russian ethnicity and likely would be tortured. 

The IJ found Macari credible but denied relief for several reasons, including that she had 

not shown that her ethnicity was “one central reason” for the assault and harm she fears, 

that she failed to corroborate her claims with objective evidence describing any 
3

persecution of ethnic Russians in Moldova, and that the assault did not rise to the level of 

persecution. The BIA agreed on the first two points and dismissed her appeal on that 

basis. It did not reach the issue of past persecution. Petitioners petition for review.1

II.

Macari raises two challenges to the BIA’s ruling. Neither has merit. First, she 

challenges the BIA’s conclusion that she did not prove that her Russian ethnicity was 

“one central reason” for her assault as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).2 That 

conclusion rested on the IJ’s finding that, according to Macari’s own testimony, the 

assault was motivated by money and her Russian ethnicity at most “played only an 

incidental, tangential, or superficial role in [the alleged] persecution.” Ndayshimiye, 557 

F.3d at 130. Macari argues that “the record more aptly supports” her assertion that she 

was attacked because of her Russian ethnicity. (Pet’rs’ Br. at 17.) We review the IJ’s 

finding on this point only for substantial evidence, however, see Ndayshimiye, 557 F.3d 

at 131, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. 

 

1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the agency’s factual findings for 

substantial evidence and may not disturb them unless “‘any reasonable adjudicator would be 

compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 665 F.3d 496, 502 (3d Cir. 2011) 

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). In doing so, we review the BIA’s decision and may look 

also to that of the IJ “only to the extent affirmed or incorporated by the [BIA].” Id. (quotation 

marks omitted). For this reason, although Macari challenges the IJ’s finding that her assault did 

not rise to the level of persecution, we do not reach the issue because it formed no basis for the 

BIA’s ruling. See id. Macari raises no challenge to the agency’s denial of withholding of 

removal or relief under CAT, so we do not reach those issues either.

2 Macari relies on decisions requiring an alien to prove only that the persecutor was “motivated, 

at least in part” by a protected ground. E.g., Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 535 (3d Cir. 2005). 

That standard was superseded in 2005 by the enactment of the more demanding “one central 

reason” standard as part of the REAL ID Act, which applies to Macari’s post-REAL ID Act 

application. See Li v. Att’y Gen., 633 F.3d 136, 142 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011); Ndayshimiye v. Att’y 

Gen., 557 F.3d 124, 129 (3d Cir. 2009). 
4

Macari testified that her attackers knew she no longer lived in Moldova, later 

looked for her in Italy and, when they could not find her, went to her mother’s house in 

Moldova searching for her because “[i]t’s all about money” that they were trying to 

extort, from her ethnically Tunisian husband, in Italy. The attackers’ reference to 

Macari’s ethnicity during the assault does not compel the conclusion that her ethnicity 

was anything more than incidental. See Ndayshimiye, 557 F.3d at 132-33 (addressing 

similar claims). Nor does Macari’s perception that the extortionists do not target ethic 

Moldovans. Macari argues that the record does not support the IJ’s finding that the 

assault was motivated by money because there is no evidence that the attackers “made 

any financial gain” and, if they really wanted to do so, would have held her for ransom 

instead of leaving her behind. (Pet’rs’ Br. at 16.) Macari herself testified that the 

attackers stole her purse, however, and the mere possibility that they might have held her 

for ransom as well does not compel the conclusion that a central reason for the assault 

was her ethnicity.

Second, and somewhat relatedly, Macari argues that she submitted sufficient 

objective evidence of strife between ethnic Russians and Moldovans to corroborate her 

claim in this regard. She relies on reports of political disputes between ethnic Russians 

and Moldovans contained in various articles and country reports, but she does not cite 

any evidence reporting any persecution of Russians because of their ethnicity. She 

acknowledges that her evidence in this regard is not “direct,” but she argues that “it can 

be . . . inferred” from this evidence of political tension that it has an ethnic dimension as 

well. (Pet’r’s Br. at 24.) Once again, however, our standard of review does not permit us 
5

to disturb the agency’s ruling unless the evidence was so strong as to compel a contrary 

conclusion. Macari cites nothing of record approaching that level.

For these reasons, we will deny the petition for review.