B ec au s e of t h e con f u s i n g s i mi l ar i t y of

P et i t i on er s ’ l as t na mes , t h ey ar e r ef er r ed t o t h r ou g h ou t t h i s opi n i on by 1 t he i r f i rst na m es. W ithh o ld ing p ro c e e d ing s h a d no t yet b e e n initiate d a g a ins t N iko la y o r M a rik a . 2 Co nv ent i on A gai ns t T ort ur e and O t her C r uel , I nh uman or D egr adi ng T r eat ment or P un i s hment , ar t
. 3, D ec. 3 1 0 , 1 9 8 4 , S . T re a ty D o c . N o . 1 0 0 -2 0 , p . 2 0 , 1 4 6 5 U .N .T .S . 8 5 ; s ee 8 C

. F.R

. §§ 12 0 8

. 1 6

- . 1 8 (20 1 0 ).

M ar i ka do es not appeal he r as y l um cl ai m eve n t houg h i t was t i mel y f i l ed and sh e woul d meet a l es s er bur den 4 t ha n w i t h he r wit hh o l d i ng claim s.

NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 11a0030n.06 No. 09-3980 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT NI KOL AY F RANTS SHVEDKO; and MARI KA AVGUSTI

N SVEDKO, Pe tit ion e rs , v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ON P ETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF TH E BO AR D OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

/ B e fo re : B AT CH EL DE R, C hie f Jud g e ; MA RTI N a nd SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. Petitioners Nikolay Shvedko and Mar ika Svedko 1 filed af firmative petitions for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval pursuant to sec tion 241(b)(3) of the 2 I mmigration and Nationality Act, and pr otection under the Convention Ag ainst Torture. An 3 immigration judge de nied their a pplications, and the de nials were aff irmed by the B oard of I mmigration Appeals. Nikolay and Mar ik a n o w ap peal the B oard’ s denial of their withholding section 241(b) (3) a

nd Convention claims. We DENY Nikolay ’s and Ma rika’s pe titions for r eview. 4No. 09-3980

Shvedk o v. Holder Pag e 2 I . BA CKGROUND Nikolay was born in Sovi et Russia, but moved at ag e eig ht to Estonia, another Soviet Union member state . Marika w as born in Estonia, whe re she and Nikol ay met, marrie d, and had two

c hil dr e n. Af

te r s e rv ingin t

he Sov ie t A rmy , Ni ko lay be c a me a me mbe r o f t

he KG B to i nv e sti g a te criminal ca ses in Estonia. Unhappy as a KGB ag ent, Nikolay reque sted to be dischar g ed fr om the ag ency . That re quest was de nied and view ed almost as a tr easonous a ct. Neve rtheless, Nikolay

a g a in r e qu e ste d a

dis c ha rg e in 1 99 0 a

nd wa s g ra nte d w a lki ngpa

pe rs . When Estonia beca

me an indepe ndent nation in 19 9 1 , Marika a nd the two childre n automatically

beca me citizens of the new Re public of Estonia bec au se they wer e all born the re. Nikolay , howeve r, did not automatically qualify for citiz enship beca use he w as born in Russia, and

ne ve r a c hie ve d f

ull c iti zen sh ip. I ns tea d, he r e c e ive d mu lti ple te mpo ra ry pe rm its a llo wi nghim

to reside in Estonia, but not to work ther e, and he obtained a passpor t from the new

Russian Fede ration. Nikolay beg an commuting to Russi a for small jobs after lea

ving the KGB , but sometime near the be g inn ingof 19 97 , he acce pte d a po sit ion wi th t he Es ton ian s e c re t po lic e , w ho c on ta c te d h im beca use of his old KGB position. He c ontinued working with the secr et police until ear ly 1999 when he beg an wor

king in Russia for

a man e x porting lumber fr om there to Estonia. I n 2002 , Ni kolay

arr ived in the United States and ha s remaine d here since. Mar ika joined him in 2 00 4. Th e ir

c hil dr e n, the n s ix tee n and e ig hte e n, re ma ine d in

Es ton ia liv ingin t

he fa mil y apar tment. I n 2004, afte r both Nikolay ’s and M arika ’s depa rture times ha d passed, they filed

a ff ir ma tiv e pe tit ion s w iththe De pa rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur i t y f o r a s y l u m , w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l, and protec tion unde r the Convention c laiming that they fea red f uture pe rsec ution and torture at theNo. 09-3980

Shvedk o v. Holder Pag e 3 hand s o f t h e Estonian and Russian secr et police. The ir petitions were ref err ed to an immigr ation judge , who f

o u n d Nikolay

and Mar ika to be cr edible, but denied the ir petitions on gr ounds that Nikolay ’s was u ntimely , neither e stablished past perse cution, and neither established beyond

s p ec u l at i o nt h at t h ey

wo u l d b e p er s ec u t edo r t o rt u re d wh en re m o v ed

. T h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge order ed Nikolay

remove d to Russi a or a lternatively to E stonia and Marika to E stonia. They appea led the dec isions to t he Boa

rd of I mmigration Appeals, but the B oard de nied their a ppeals, findingthat the imm ig ra

tio n ju dg e ’s de c isi on s w e re no t c le arl y e rr on e ou s. I I . DI SCUS SI ON Nikolay and Mar ika asser

t tha t , if retur

ned to their c ountries of re moval, they would be perse cuted a

nd tortured be cause Nikolay ’s past af filiations with the KGB a

nd Estonian secr et police place them in persec uted social g roups, and beca use member ship in those gr oups imputes to them

c e rt a in p oli tic a l op ini on s. Al so , the y c ite human rig hts pr ob le ms a nd po lic e and

pr iso n b ruta lity

in both countries as f

urther e vidence

. Howeve r, a series of events occur ring betwee n 1992 and 2004 constitute the bulk of re asons that they fea r future perse cution and torture

. The fir st event occ urre d someti m e b et we en 1992 and 1995 when Mar ika found c rosses
a ff ixed to the ir a

pa rt me nt wi th the ini tia ls “ KG B ” and the ir name s wr itt e n on them. S he als o suspected that she was be ing f ollowed, but she does not alleg e by whom. Ad d i t i o n al l y , a loca l day car e ref

used to a dmit their son, hinting that the re ason wa s the family ’s forme r Soviet aff iliation. When Nikolay beg an working with the Est onian s ecr et pol ice a round 1997, Nikolay

believes that their apa

rtment was under audio and video surveillance be cause bushes and tre es we re c ut down in front o f the apa

rtment. Additionally , an Estonian sec ret police ag ent named Ma rko Reinhar dtNo. 09-3980

Shvedk o v. Holder Pag e 4
con tac ted the h ome and

kn e w i nf or ma tio n th a t on ly

c ou ld h a ve be e n o bta ine d f ro m li ste nin g to fa mil y c on ve rs a tio ns ins ide the a pa rtme nt. Al so , fo rm e r KG B c on ta c ts be g an vis iti ngth e fa mil y without invit ation. A f e w y e a rs la te r, fo rm e r K GB a g e nts c on ta c te d N iko lay a sk ing to be pu t in c on ta c t wi th h is employ er. Shortly

there afte r, in 2002, his employ er told him t h at age n t s from the ne w Russian F e d e r a l S e c u r i t y B u r e a

uh a d c o m e t o h i s o f

f i c e w a n t i n g t o “ d e t a i n ” N i k o l ay i no r d e r t o “ c l a r i f y” some things. Af

raid for his safety , Nikolay

fled Russia and c ame to the United States in 2002. Th e la st e ve nts c ite d by Ni ko lay and Ma ri ka oc c ur

re d aro un d 20 04 a ft e r Ma ri ka ha d c ome to the United States. Whil e the c hildren lived alone in the apar tment, Reinhardt cont ac ted them multipl e times looking for Nikolay and knew things a bout them “from their

rec ent past.” N ikolay te le ph on e d Re inh ard

t f ro m th e Un ite d St a te s at w hic h ti me Re inh ard t to ld h im that N iko lay

wo uld be ba c k in

Es ton ia wi thi n a y e ar a nd that Re inh ard

t w ou ld k no w a bo ut i t and

be in t ou c h w ithhim

. A. Stand ard of Review We have jurisdiction to revie w final orders of r emoval issued by the B oard. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a ) ( 20 06 ); Urbina-Me jia v. Holder , 5 9 7 F

. 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 4 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )

. Wh e n th e Boa rd’s decision “a dopts the immi g ration judg e’s r easoningand supplements [ it] ,” as the B oard did he re, w e revie w that opinion a s supplemented. Ur bin a- Me jia , 5 9 7 F. 3 d

at 3 6 4 (c i t i n g Zhao v. Holder , 569 F.3d 238, 246 ( 6th Cir. 2009)). This Court reviews que stions of law de novo, but fa ctual findings b y t h e Boa rd and the immigration judge a

re r eviewe d for “ substantial evidence .” Shaya v. H older , 58 6 F .3 d 4 01 , 4 05 (6 thNo. 09-3980

Shvedk o v. Holder Pag e 5 Cir. 2009). “The se finding s of fa ct ar e conc lusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (B ). B. Withhol din g of Rem oval Wi th h o ld in g o f r e mo v a l pursuant to section 241(b) (3) of the I mmigration and Nationality Act

“ is n ot d isc re tio na

ry , b ut r a the r is mand a tor

y if the a lie n e sta

bli sh e s that his ‘l if

e or fr e e do m w ou ld b e t h r e a t e n e d

i n t h e p r o p o s e d

c o u n t r y o f r e m o v a l o na c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion.’” Ur bin a- Me jia , 597 F.3d at 364-65 (q u o t i n g Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009) ). To satisfy this burde n, the applica nt

mus t e sta bli sha “ c le ar p ro ba

bil ity” that he wi ll be pe rs e c ute d u po n r e tur n to the c ountr

y of re mov a l. Id. at 3 6 5 (q u o t i n g Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 3 98 F .3 d 3 96 , 4 01 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ). An a pp lic ant m ay

e sta bli sh

a thr e a t of pe rs e c uti on

by sh ow ingpa st p e rs e c uti on on a pr ote c te d g ro un d or that th e re is m or e lik e ly tha n n ot a futur e thr e a t of

pe rs e c uti on

on a pr ote c te d g ro un d. 8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b) (2 01 0) ; see Thap v. Mukase

y , 544 F. 3 d 674, 681 (6th Cir. 2008). Persec ution is “‘the infliction of har m or
su ff e ri ngby the g ov e rnme nt, or

pers on s th e g ov e rnme nt i s unw ill ingor un a ble to c on tr ol, to

overc ome a char acte ristic of the victim.’” Urbin a- Me jia , 5 9 7 F. 3 d

at 3 6 5 (q u o t i n g Kha lil i , 557 F.3d at 436) . I mpo rt antl y

fo r p ur po se s o f s e c tio n 2 41 (b )( 3) , N iko lay and Mari ka do no t all e g e pa st persecuti on. There fore , to establish eligibility for withholding of re moval pursuant to sec tion 241(b)( 3), they

must show that it i s more likely than not that they

would suffe r future perse cution if re tur ne d to the ir

c ountr ie s o f r e mov a l. A lth ou g h N iko lay and Ma ri ka do no t alle g e that th e e ve ntsNo. 09-3980

Shvedk o v. Holder Pag e 6 they experience d in the past wer e “past perse cution,” thos e events still form much of the basis for their fe ar of

future pe rsec ution. Nikolay believes that he will persec uted by the Russian secr et pol ice if returne d to Russi a, bu t out of a ll the pa st e ve nts he c ite s a s r e a so ns su pp or tin g his fe ar, the on ly on e tha t is re le va nt t o the Rus sia

n s e c re t po lic e is the tim e that the y atte mpt e d to “ de ta in” him a t w or k to “ c lari fy” so me things. Even though he worke d in Russia for approxi mately three y ear s from the time he stopped working with the Estonian police until he fled to the Unit ed S tates, t his is the lone eve nt from that time p e ri od

to w hic h h e po int s a s p ro of that he wi ll b e pe rs e c ute d in the futur e . Si nc e that si ng le i n s t an c e i n2 0 0 2 , t h e R

u s s i ans e c r e tp o l i c e h a v e n o t a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c th i m o r

h i s f a m i l y. Ad dit ion a lly , N iko lay

do e s n ot k

no w w hat th e po lic e wa

nte d, muc h le ss w he the r t he y int e nd e d to harm him. Even thoug h he “guesses” that they are conce rned w ith hi s p as t i nvolvement with the Es ton ian s e c re t po lic e , h e a dmi ts that hi s w or k d id n ot c on fl ic t w ithRus sia n in te re sts
. Th e on ly oth e r b a se s th at Ni ko lay c ite s f or thi s f e ar a re c ountr y re po rt s st a tin g that Ru ssi a has problems wi t h human rig hts as well as police and prison bruta lity . Howeve r, “‘ fea red perse cu t i o n must relate to the a lien individually , not to the population ge nera lly .’” Harche nko v. I.N.S. , 379 F.3d 405, 410 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). These alleg ed proble ms have nothing to do with his i ndividualiz ed status as a former member of

the KGB and Est o n i an s ec ret police

. There fore , Nikolay

has fa iled to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be pe rsec uted if retur ned to Russia. Nikolay ’s and Ma

rika’s f ear of per secution u p o n returningto Estonia is based upon the

rema inder of the past eve nts, but the y ar e l es s compelling . Nikolay and Mar ika cite e vidence ofNo. 09-3980

Shvedk o v. Holder Pag e 7 inscribed c rosses attac hed to their a partment, Mar ika’s belief that she wa s followed, Nikolay ’s belief that their apartment was under surveillance , phone calls from the Estonian secr et police looking for Ni ko lay , Rei nh ard

t’ s ass e rt ion that he wo uld kn ow wh e n Nik ola y wa s in Es ton ia

and wo uld be in tou c h w ithhim

the n, and a

da y c are ’s re fu sa l to a dmi t th e ir so n. To be sure , it

wo uld be un de sir a

ble

and un fo rt

un a te fo r Ni ko lay and Ma ri ka to re tur

n to Es ton ia and e xpe ri e nc e sim ila r eve nts
. Ho we ve r, a ssumin g tho se ty pe s o f e ve nts wo uld

c on tin ue , th e y wo uld mor e c los e ly

re se mbl e hara ssment than perse cution. Cf. Haider v. H older , 595 F.3d 276 , 2 8 9 (6t h Cir. 2010) (quoting Mikhailev itch v. I.N.S. , 146 F.3d 384, 390 ( 6th Cir. 1998)) (“ Persec ution ‘require s more than a few iso la te d in c ide nts of

ve rb a l ha ra ssm e nt o r i nti mid a tio n, un a c c omp anie d b y any ph y sic a l pu

nis hme nt, inf lic tio n o f h arm , o r s ig nif

ic ant d e pr ivatio n o f l ibe rt y .’ ” ). F ur the rm or e , th e natur e of

the se e ve nts does not indicate that any future events would esca late to perse cution. What is m ore, N ikolay ’s and Mari ka ’s c hil dr e n h a ve c on tin ue d to re sid e in the fa

mil y a pa rtme nt wi tho ut be ing ha

rm e d s inc e the ir pare nts came to the Unit ed S tates. This fac t underc uts Nikolay ’s and Ma rika’s f ear of per secution. See I n re A-E- M , 2 1 I

. & N

. D e c . 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 0 ( B I A 1 9 9 8 ) ( n o ti n g th a t th e a p p li c an t’ s fea r of perse cution was unde rcut by the fa ct that his family members remained in Peru unhar med for f our y ear s after

he lef t). Nikolay and Mar ika also cite c ountry repor ts identifying E stonia as a plac e whe re huma n rig hts problems and pol ice and prison brutality occur , but as with Russia, this g ener alized evidence does not relate to them. See H archenk o , 379 F.3d at 410. There fore , Nikolay and Mar ika have failed to establish that it is more likely than not that they

would be per secute d if retur ned to Estonia.No. 09-3980

Shvedk o v. Holder Pag e 8 C. Convention Again st Torture Eligibility

for withholding of re moval under the Convention Ag ainst Torture r equire s the

a pp lic ant “ to e sta

bli sh that it is mor e lik e ly tha n not that he or sh e wo uld be tor tur e d if re mov e d to the pr op os e d c ountr

y of re mov a l.” 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( c )( 2) ; see Shk ulaku-Purballor i v. Muk

asey , 5 1 4 F. 3 d 4 9 9 , 5 0 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). T o rt u re i s d ef i n edas “‘ an y

ac t b y wh i ch s ev er e pa i no r s u ff er i n g, whether phy sical or menta l, is int entionally inflicted’ to extract infor mation, punish, int imidate,

co erc e, or othe rwise discr iminate.” Haider , 5 9 5 F

. 3 d a t 2 8 9 ( qu o ti n g 8 C. F

. R. § 1 2 0 8

. 1 8 ( a ) ( 1)). Relief under

the Convention is quite sim ilar to withholding of r emoval under section 241(b)( 3), but doe s n o t r e qu ir e th e a

p p li c an t to li n k th e h ar

m th a t h e w il l f

a c e w it h an y o f th e f

ive protec ted g rounds for a sy lum—race , relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular social g roup, or political opinion. See Castellano-Chacon v. I.N.S. , 341 F.3d 533, 551- 52 (6th Cir. 2003). Nikolay and Mar ika base their cla ims for with h o l d i ng pursuant to the Convention on the

same e vid e nc e c ite d f

or th eir sect ion 24 1( b) (3 ) c la ims . H ow e ve r, be c a us e the y have fa ile d to establish that it is m ore likely than not that they

would suffe r per s ec u t i o n , they have ne ither established that they

would more likely

than not be torture d. Com pa re Thap , 5 4 4 F

. 3 d at 681 (def inition of persec ution), with Haider , 595 F.3d at 289 (definition of torture ).

I V. CONCL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY Nikolay ’s and Ma rika’s pe titions for r eview.