Petition er also requested with hold in g of remov al andpro tection un der th e Convention Again st 1 To rtur e ( CA T) , b utdi d n o tc ha l l e ng e the I J’ s de ni a l o f thi s r e l ief before th e B I A and ha s no tr a i s e d any argume nts co nce rningthe deni alo f suc h re li ef in this a pp ea l. NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 08a0098n. 06 Fi l ed: February6, 2008 N o. 06- 4123 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
YUL I YA KARNAUKH , P eti ti o n er,
v. M I C H A E L M U K A S E Y , U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y G e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls

/ B efore: G U Y , G IL M A N , an d M cK E A G U E , C i rcu i t Jud ges. P E R C U R I A M. Pet i t i oner Y ul i y a K arnaukh, a nat i ve and cit izen o f U kr ai ne, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the or derof th e B o ard o f I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) vaca t i ng an i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s ( I J ) deci s i on gr ant i ng herr eques tforas y l um underSect i on 208 of the I mmi g r a t i o n a nd N a t i o n a l i t yAc t( I NA) , 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 5 8
. P e t i t i o n e rs o u g h ta s y l u m, 1 cl ai m i ng a fe arof futur e per s ecut i on on acc oun t o f herr el i gi on and ethni ci t ybyvi r tue of h av ing co m m itted h erse lf t o the p rac ti ce o f J u d a ism w h il e in th e U n it ed S tat es. T h e B IA concl uded that , even i f cr edi bl e, pet i t i oner had nonet hel es s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l
- foundedNo. 06-4123 2

f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n if

sh e w e re to re tu rn to U k ra in e . P e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t th e B IA f a iled to addr es s t he evi dence s he pr es ent ed conc erni ng t he per s ecut i on of J ew s i n U kr ai ne, and that t he B I A ’s det er m i nat i on t hats he had notm etherbur den of pr oof w as nots uppor t ed by
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h b e l o w, we d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. K arnaukh w as bor n in 1 9 7 5 i n K i ev, U kr ai ne, w hi ch w as t hen partof the Sovi et U ni on. She ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a non- i m m i gr antvi s a on M ay2, 1998, and w as
au tho ri ze d to stayu n ti l N o v em b er 1 , 1 9 9 8
. P eti ti o n er o v erstay ed h er v isa, b eg an to ex p lore J udai s m i n N ovember 1998, gave bi r t h t o a s on i n M ar ch 1999, and com m i t t ed her s el f t o t he p ra c tice o f

J u d a ism in th e f

a ll o f 2 0 0 0 . K a rn a u k h f

iled a n a p p lica tio n f

o r a sy lu m in N ovember 2000. A N ot i ce t o A ppearchar gi ng her w i t h bei ng s ubj ect t o r emoval w as i s s ued on A pr i l 12, 2001. Pet i t i onerm ade a fi r s t appea r ance i n O ct ober 2001, and, aft era s er i es of cont i nuance s , a mer i t s hear i ng w as fi nal l yhel d on J anuary28, 2005. T her e i s no cl ai m t hat pet i t i onerorany one i n herfami l yexper i ence d pas tper s ecut i on
w hi l e i n U kr ai ne. Pet i t i onerexpl ai ned thatherm ot herident i fi ed her s el f as J ew i s h, but
conce al ed thatfac tand mai nt ai ned a f ew J ew i s h t r adi t i ons athom e ( s uch as m aki ng l at kes atH anukkah)
. H erfatherw as O r t hodox C hr i s t i an, and theyw oul d s om et i m es go t o an Or t h o d o x Ru s s i a n Ch u r c h
. P e t i t i o n e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d a l wa y s h a d a n i n t e r e s ti n J u d a i s m, butonl ybegan t o l earn abouti taft erJ ew i s h fr i ends t ook h er t o s er vi ces and gave her l i t er atur e i n N ovember 1998. She began a t t endi ng s er vi ces , j oi ned a t empl e, and comm i t t ed t o pr act i ci ng t he fai t h. A l t hough t he D epart m ent of H om el and Secur i t y( D H S) cont es t ed theNo. 06-4123 3

t i m el i nes s of herappli cat i on, t he I J found, and the B I A agr eed, t hats he qual i fi ed foran
exce pt i on t o t he one- y eardeadl i ne forfi l i ng heras y l um appl i cat i on. T he t i m el i nes s of the
a p p lica tio n is n o t at iss u e o n a p p e a l. K arnaukh t es t i fi ed thats he bel i eves peopl e w i l l “hat e her ” i f s he r etur ns t o U kr ai ne
a n d p ra c tice s J u d a ism . H e r m o th e r, w h o still l iv e d in U k r a in e , told h e r th a t o th e r p e o p le
w er e mi s t r eat ed w hen theyr etur ned and r evea l ed t hat t hey w er e Jew i s h. K arnaukh r el at ed t hats he knew a s tudenti n s chool w it h h er fr om 1982 t o 1992, w ho w as cons t ant l ybeat en b e c a u se h e w a s J e w ish . P e tit io n e r a lso tes tifie d th a t s h e b e liev e d th a t th e rise in n a tio n a listic fee l i ngs i n U kr ai ne pr es ent ed m or e dange rt o J ew s . I n s uppor tof hercl ai m t o a w el l
- founded fe ar o f p erse cu tio n , K arn au k h reli ed o n a re p o rtan d sev era l new s b u ll eti n s tha t w ere pu bli shed by t he U nion of C ou ncil s for J ew s i n the Fo rm er Sov i etU nion (U C S J)
. S he als o
r e l i e d o n th e t el ephoni c t es t i m onyof N i col ai B ut kevi ch, t he R es ear ch and A dvocac yD i r ect or forU C SJ and author of t he U C SJ’ s r epor t ent i t l ed “C hr oni cl e of A nt i s emi t i s m i n U kr ai ne: 2002- 2004. ” Fi nal l y , pet i t i oner offe r ed an i nt er vi ew w i t h a pol i t i cal s ci ent i s tw ho expl ai ned th a t th e re h a d b e e n a sig n if ica n t in c re a se in th e p u b lica tio n o f a n ti-S e m iti c m a ter ial in U kr ai ne dur i ng 2004. T he U C SJ’ s r epor t acknow l edged t hat t he gover nm entof U kr ai ne no l ongerhad an off i ci al po l i cyof an t i -Sem i t i sm and had m ade “f ri end l yg e stu res t ow ard t he Jew i sh
comm uni t y . ” The r epor t al s o concl uded t hat t her e had been a w or s eni ng of the s i tuat i on for J e ws i n s e v e r a l p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r yb e t we e n 2 0 0 2 a n d 2 0 0 4 , p o i n t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l yt o t wo at t acks on s ynagogues i n 2002, fourbeat i ngs of J ew s i n K i ev i n 2003 and 2004, and s ever alNo. 06-4123 4

as s aul t s on J ew s i n ot her ar eas of t he countr ybetw een 2002 a nd 2004. D et ai l i ng t he s peci fi cs of i nci dent s of ant i
- Sem i t i c vi ol ence and vandal i s m , t he U C SJ r epor ti ndi cat ed thatU kr ani an author i t i es had m ade few arr es t s . B ut kevi ch nonet hel es s conce ded t hat U kr ani an author i t i es h a d u se d th e c o u n try ’s “ h a te c rim e s” law to p ro se c u te a g ro u p o f y o u th s in c o n n e c tio n w ith t he att ack bys ki nheads on t he ce nt r al s ynagogue i n K i ev i n 2002. B ut kevi ch t es t i fi ed thatt her e had be en an i ncr eas e i n ant i
- Sem i t i c vi ol ence i n t he pr evi ous t w o y ear s , w hi ch he at t r i but ed t o pol i t i cal i ns t abi l i t y , a r i s e of nat i onal i s m , and the
u se of an ti -S em it ic p rop ag an d a byp o li ti cian s in the rec en t el ec ti o n . A lth o u g h the U C S J’s
r epor tpoi nt ed t o ant i
- Sem i t i c s t at ement s byt hen Pr esid en t Leoni d K uchma, B ut kevi ch
c o n c e d e d th a t n e w ly in sta lled P re sid e n t V ik to r Y u sh c h e n k o h a d n o t m a d e a n ti-S e m iti c
re m a rk s. B u tk e v ich a lso n o ted th a t a m e m b e r o f Y u sh c h e n k o ’s p a rtyh a d m a d e a n ti-S e m iti c
s t a t e m e n t s , b u t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e p o l i t i c i a n i n q u e s t i o n h a d b e e n f o r c e d o u to f

t h e p a r t y. T h e D H S o f

f e r e d n e w s re p o rts f

ro m ju st d a y s b e f

o re th e h e a rin g a b o u t sta tem e n ts
m ade byY us hchenko. Speci fi cal l y , Y us hchenko de clared a com m i t m entt o r el i gi ous f re e d o m in h is in a u g u r a l sp e e c h a n d re jec ted a n ti-S e m iti sm d u rin g a trip to P o lan d to
co m m em or at e the Sovi etl i ber at i on of A us chw i t z. C entr al t o t hi s appea l w er e the D epart m entof St at e’ s U kr ai ne C ount r yR epor t s of H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces for2003 and the U kr ai ne R el i gi ous Fr eedom Repor t for 2003. T hes e r epor t s des cr i bed ant i
- Sem i t i c vi ol ence i n U kr ai ne as “s por adi c” a nd “ i n fr equent , ” w hi l e not i ng t hats om e ul t r anat i onal i s tgr oups and
n ew sp ap ers c o n tin u e d to p u b li sh an ti -S em it ic m aterial
. T h e R eli g iou s F ree d o m rep o rt di s cus s ed the “s m al l buts i gni fi cant ” J ew i s h popul at ion in U kr ai ne, t he hi s t or i cal fac tt hatNo. 06-4123 5

m anyof i t s J ew s per i s hed i n t he H ol ocaus torw ere vi ct i m s of Sovi etr epr es s i on, and the “demogr aphi c di ffi cul t i es ” fa ced byt he J ew i s h comm uni t y due t o fur t heremi gr at i on fr om U k ra in e . N o n e th e les s, th e U k ra in ian g o v e rn m e n t w a s p ro c e e d in g w ith th e re tu rn o f p ro p e rty t o r el i giou s co m m uni t i es , i ncl udi ng t he J ew s . T he r epor tconcl uded that“J ew i s h l i fe cont i nues t o fl our i s h, w i t h addi t i onal comm uni t i es r egi s t er ed eve r yy eardue t o an i ncr eas ed p ro p o rtio n o f

Je w s p ra c ticin g th e ir f a ith (h e lp e d b ya n in c re a se in th e n u m b e r o f R a b b is
e n ter in g th e c o u n try . . . sin c e in d e p e n d e n c e ) an d a n in c re a se d w ill in g n e ss o f in d iv id u a ls to id e n tif yth e m s e lv e s o p e n ly as J e w is h .” I n an or al decisi on fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, t he I J found thatpet i t i onerw as cr edi bl e, det er m i ned thatheras y l um appl i cat i on w as t i m el y , and found t hats he had de m ons t r at ed a
s ubj ect i ve fe ar of futur e per s ecut i on. T hen, gi vi ng m or e w ei ghtt o B ut kevi ch’ s t es t i m ony t han the D epart m ent of St at e’ s r epor t s , t he I J concl uded thatpet i t i onerhad al s o es t abl i s hed
a n o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e f

e a r o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n i f s h e w e r e t o r e tu r n t o U k r a i n e . F i n a l l y,
e x e r c i s i n g h i s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e I J f o u n d n o r e a s o n t o d e n yp e t i t i o n e ra s y l u m. T h e DHS appea l ed t o t he B I A
. O n J ul y21, 2006, t he B I A i s s ued i t s deci s i on ( 1) agr eei ng t hat pet i t i onerqual i fi ed foran exce pt i on t o t he one- y ear fi l i ng deadl i ne for as y l um ; ( 2) fi ndi ng “no nee d t o di s turb” t h e IJ’s det er m i nat i on t hatt he pet i t i onerw as cr edi bl e; and ( 3) concl udi ng t hat , even i f cr edi bl e, pet i t i onerhad nots us t ai ned herbur den of pr ovi di ng t hat
s he had a w el l -fo u n d ed fea rof per s ecut i on i f s he w er e t o r etur n t o U kr ai ne. T hi s appea l f o llo w e d , an d w e g ra n ted p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n f o r a sta yo f

re m o v a l p e n d in g re so lu tio n o f th is
a p p e a l.No. 06-4123 6 II. W hen the B I A does nots um m ar i l yaff i r m oradopt t he I J ’ s r eas oni ng and pr ovi des an expl anat i on fori t s deci s i on, w e re vi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on as t he fi nal agenc ydet er m i nat i on. I l i c- Lee v. Mukas ey , 5 0 7 F .3 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 4 7 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Za i t o n a v . I NS , 9 F. 3d 432, 434 ( 6t h C i r . 1993)
. Q ues t i ons of l aw i n i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs ar e r evi ew ed de novo. A l i v. A sh c ro ft , 366 F. 3d 407, 409 ( 6t h C i r . 2004)
. W e w i l l aff i r m t he B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , as
w e ll a s it s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e p e tit io n e r f a iled to m e e t h e r b u rd e n to e sta b lish e lig ib ili ty f o r a s y lu m , if

s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Ce r a jv . Mukas ey ,

_ _ F
. 3 d

__ , 2 0 0 7 WL 4547727 ( 6t h C i r . D ec. 28, 2007) ( ci t i ng I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U
. S
. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (19 9 2 ));
se e a lso S in g h v . A s h c ro ft , 398 F. 3d 396, 400 ( 6t h C i r . 2005)
. T he I N A pr ovi des t hat “admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s any r eas onabl e adj udi cat or w oul d be
co m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 ). A . A s yl um St anda r ds D i s pos i t i on of an appl i cat i on for as y l um i nvol ves a t w o- s t ep i nqui r y : ( 1) w hethert he appl i cantqual i fies as a “ r efuge e” w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A ct ; and ( 2) w hethert he appl i cant“mer i t s a favor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on byt he A t t or neyG ener al
. ” P erkovi c v. I NS , 33 F. 3d 615, 620 ( 6t h C i r . 1994)
. A “r efuge e” i s a per s on w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r etur n t o hi s hom e countr ybeca us e of e i t herp ast p er s ecut i on ora w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al group , or poli t i cal op i nion. 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 10 1(a) (42)( A ); 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 2 0 8 .1 3(b). B ecause th e re is n o c laim o f

p a st p e rse c u tio n in th is c a se , the re is a lso n o p re su m p tio n o f a w e ll-No. 06-4123 7

fo u n d ed fe ar o f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n . 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 3 (b)(1 ). A s a r es ul t , pet i t i onerm u st es t abl i s h ( 1) t hats he has a fe arof per s ecut i on i n her
c o u n tryo f

o rig in o n a c c o u n t o f

a p ro tec ted g ro u n d , (2 ) th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili ty
o f su f f e rin g su c h p e rse c u tio n if sh e w e re to re tu rn to th a t co u n try , an d (3 ) th a t sh e is u n a b le
o r u n w illin g to re tu rn to th a t c o u n tr y b e c a u s e o f s u c h f e a r. Mi kh a i l e v i t c h v . I

NS , 146 F. 3d 384, 390 ( 6t h C i r . 1998)
. Per s ecut i on forpurpos es of as y l um m eans m o re than i s ol at ed in c id e n ts o f v e rb a l h a ra ss m e n t o r in tim id a tio n u n a c c o m p a n ied b ya n yp h y sic a l p u n ish m e n t, in f lic tio n o f h a rm , o r s ig n if

ic a n t d e p ri v a tio n o f

lib e rt y . Id
. A w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n h a s b o th a su b jec tiv e a n d a n o b

jec tiv e c o m p o n e n t: “an ali en m ustactuall yfear that he w i l l be p ers ecuted up on return t o h i s coun t ry , and he m ust pr es entevi denc e est abl i s hi ng an ‘ obj ect i ve s i tuat i on’ underw hi ch hi s fea rcan be deemed
r e a s o n a bl e. ” P e r k o v ic , 33 F. 3d at620- 21 ( ci t i ng I N S v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 480 U
. S. 421, 4 3 0 -3 1 , 4 4 0 (1 9 8 7 )). It is no t n e c e ss a ryf o r th e a p p lica n t to d e m o n stra te th a t h e w ill p ro b a b ly be per s ecut ed becaus e “[o] ne can cer t ai nl y have a w el l
- founded f earof an e venthappeni ng
w hen ther e i s l es s t han a 50% chanc e of the occ ur r ence t aki ng pl ace . ” Car d o z a - F ons eca , 480 U
. S. at431. B . A n alysi s H ere , the B IA ac ce p ted th e f ind ing that p eti ti o n er w as c red ible— an d there fo re p resu m ab lythat h er fea r of fu ture p erse cu ti o n w as g en u ine— b u t con clud ed that p eti ti o n er’s “t est i m on i al and do cum entaryevidence descri bing i ncident s of an t i -Sem i t i c viol ence [ w as]
n o t in c o n sis ten t w ith D e p a rtm e n t o f S tate re p o rts ind ica tin g th a t, o v e ra ll, a c ts o f a n ti-No. 06-4123 8

S e m iti sm in th e U k ra in e a re re lativ e ly in f re q u e n t ( C om

par e T r. a t 5 7 -6 7 ; E x h . 5 , w ith E xh. 6). ” C om pari ng t he U C S J’ s r epo rtand t he Stat e D epart m ent report s for 20 03 , t he B IA al so ci t ed t o t he St at e D epart m entr epor t s for2005 and thi s cour t ’ s deci s i on i n Kol i ada b e f o re
con cludi ng t hatpet i t i onerhad notes t abl i s hed a w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. Ko l i a da v . I

NS , 2 5 9 F
. 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 7 -88 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). P et i t i onerar gues t hatt he B I A “mi s appl i ed” the fa ct s byfai l i ng t o r ecogni ze or pos s i bl yeven c ons i dert he evi dence s he pr es ent ed. O n t he contr ary , t he B I A ’ s deci s i on
r efl ect s t hati tcons i der ed and w ei ghed the evi d en ce. T her e w as no r eal di s put e thatt he in c id e n ts id e n tifie d b yB u tk e v ich h a p p e n e d

— th e d isa g re e m e n t w a s o v e r th e c o n c lu sio n s to b e d raw n fro m the ev iden ce . T h is is re flec ted in p eti ti o n er’s fu rth er arg u m en t tha t the B IA
s houl d nothave r el i ed on the St at e D epart m entr epor t s . Pet i t i oners peci fi cal l ypoi nt s t o a “s eemi ngl ycontr adi ct or y ” s t at ement t hatt he J ew i s h com m u n it y“fl our i s hed” de s pi t e the “demogr aphi c di ffi cul t i es ” thatr es ul t ed fr om cont i nued emi gr at i on fr om U kr ai ne. T he crux
o f p e tit io n e r’s c riticism , h o w e v e r, is ba se d o n B u tk e v ich ’s tes tim o n y th a t t h e S tate D epart m entunderr epor t ed i nci dent s of ass aul t s on J ew s betw een 2002 a nd 2004. B ut kevi ch d e tailed app roxi m ate lye ig h t as sa u lts th a t w e re n o t m e n tio n e d in th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts and s ugges t ed thatt hi s m i ght be expl ai ned bya l ack of comm uni cat i on w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es E m bas s yi n U kr ai ne. A s w e expl ai ned i n Kol i ada , ot her ci r cui t s have both aff or ded s i gni fi cantdefe r ence t o St at e D epart m entr epor t s i n as s es s i ng countr y co n d it i ons , and cr i t i ci zed s uch r epor t s as f la w e d o r c o lo re d b yp o litic a l c o n s id e ra tio n s . Kol i ada , 259 F. 3d at 487 ( ci t i ng cas es )
. O neNo. 06-4123 9

of the ca s es not ed i n Kol i ada al s o obs er ved thatal t hough St at e D epart m entr epor t s m aybe fl aw ed, confl i ct i ng r epor t s of pr i vat e gr oups or new s or gani zat i ons “mayhave dr aw backs of t hei row n. ” Go n a h a s a v . I NS , 181 F. 3d 538, 543 ( 4 th C ir
. 1999)
. R egar dl es s of the crit ici sm s tha t m ayb e lev eled ag ains t th e rep o rt s reg ard ing co u n tryco n d it ion s, o u r i n q u iry is d ic ta te d b yth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd
. Kol i ada , 2 5 9 F .3 d a t 4 8 8 . T h e F o u rth C irc u it ap tlye x p lain e d th a t:

I n anyevent , ourt as k i s nott o r ew ei gh t he evi dence and det er m i ne w hi ch of the compet i ng vi ew s i s m or e com pel l i ng. I t i s i ns t ead t o ens ur e that su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s ju d g m e n t. In m o st c a se s, a S tate D epart m entr epor tpr ovi des s uch s ubs t ant i al evi dence
. A bs entpow er ful contr adi ct or yevi dence , t he exi s t ence of a St at e D epart m entr epor ts uppor t i ng t he B I A ’ s j udgm ent w i l l gener al l y s uffi ce t o uphol d t he B oar d’ s deci s i on. A ny ot herrul e w oul d i nvi t e court s t o over tur n t he for ei gn aff ai r s as s es s m ent s of the exec ut i ve br anch. G on ah asa , 18 1 F
. 3d at54 2-43. G i ven t he d eferent i al st and ard of r eview , w e m ayno trever se th e B IA ’s d e c is io n s im p ly b e c a u s e w e m ig h t h a v e d e c id e d th e m a tte r d if f e re n tly. Kol i ada , 2 5 9 F .3 d a t 4 8 6 ; Mi khai l evi t ch , 146 F. 3d at388. A ppl y i ng t hi s s t andar d, w e must al s o keep i n m i nd t hathar as s m entordi s cr i m i nat i on
a lo n e d o e s n o t r is e to th e l e v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n , Mi khai l evi t ch , 146 F. 3d at389- 90, and that per s ecut i on “‘ does noti ncl ude eve r ys or tof t r eatm ent our s oci ety r egar ds as offe ns i ve. ’ ” A li , 3 6 6 F. 3 d a t 4 1 0 ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. Aft e r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e B I A , w e ca nnot concl ude thatt he evi dence w oul d com pel a f in d in g th a t th e re w a s a r e a s o n a b le p o ss ib ili ty t hatpet i t i onerw oul d be s ubj ect ed t o persecu ti o n if s he w er e t o r etur n t o U kr ai ne. A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.