NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________
No. 20

- 2 451

________________ FLOREA CIUPANGEL,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Agency No.: A 209

- 426

- 093 ) Immigration Judge: Jeffrey L. Menkin

________________
Submitted Pursuant to LAR 34.1(a) on

March 12, 2021

Before: SMITH
, Chief Judge
, MCKEE , and AMBRO
, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 19, 2021 )

________________
OPINION *

________________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

M c K EE
, Circuit Judge

Flore a Ciupangel
, a citizen of Romania who is of Roma ethnicity
, seeks review of

the BIA’s final order of removal . The BIA affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of
Ciupangel’s application for asylum , withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture

. The Board agreed with the IJ’s determination that
Ciupangel had not established a pattern or practice of persecution of the Romani
population in Romania

. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. 1

I

. Ciupangel claims that the IJ failed to properly apply the standard for persecution

and that it focused only on evidence of physical violence against Ciupangel’s family and

Roma rather than the many non

- physical harms Roma face

. 2 We review questions of law

de novo , including whether the correct legal standard was applied

. 3

Ciupangel is incorrect in claiming that the IJ erred in resolving his claim of
persecution in its January 29, 2020 decision

. 4 The IJ define d persecution as “a threat to

1 We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 1 ).
2 We note that Ciupangel also asks us to clarify the systemic, pervasive
, or or ganized standard. Petitioner’s Br. at 35 ( “ [T] he systemic, pervasive or organized standard lacks a clear legal definition, making application more difficult and misapplication more likely. ”). We decline to do so at this tim e as it is not necessary for the resolution of this

case. 3 Vakker v. Att’y Gen. , 519 F.3d 143, 146 (3d Cir. 2008).
4 Ciupangel refers to this decision as the January 30, 2020 decision; it is captioned January 29, 2020 and signed on January 30, 2020.3

the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or h arm upon, those who differ in a
way regarded as offensive” and appropriately applied that definition to the facts. 5

Ciupangel ’s assertion that the IJ “ focuse [d] exclusively” on the physical harms is
also belied by the record

. 6 The IJ noted that police violence against Roma “is one of the
principal human rights concerns in Romania today,” but t h e IJ also addresse d the
evidence Ciupangel provided and explicitly conclud ed that “discrimination and
mistreatment of Roma as it relates to housing, employ ment, education, and health care

. .

. do [] not rise to the level of persecution contemplated under the Act.” 7

Ciupangel did not satisfy his burden of establishing that such harm is sufficient to

constitute a pattern or practice as required to qualify f or relief from a removal order

. To
amount to a pattern or practice, persecution must be “ systemic, pervasive, or organized. ” 8

We have explained that persecution under the INA includes “threats to life, confinement,

torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or

freedom.” 9 However, “ [ g ] enerally harsh conditions” do not constitute persecution. 10

“ P ersecution is an extreme concept” and “[a]busive treatment and harassment, while
always deplorable, may not rise to the level of persecution.” 11

5 App. 29 (citing In re Acosta , 19 I&N Dec. 211, 222 (BIA 1985); Li v. Atty Gen. , 400 F.3d 157, 164

- 68 (3d Cir. 2005)).
6 See Petitioner’s Br. at 34.
7 App. 32.
8 Lie v. Ashcroft
, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005)

. 9 Fatin v. I.N.S. , 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993)

. 10 Id. (internal citation omitted).
11 Jarbough v. Att’y Gen. , 483 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2007).4

We appreciate the Romani’s economic disadvantages, lack of access to education
and health care, and unequal access to legal remedies . However, we agree with the BIA’s

conclusion that such deprivations do not ris e to the level of a pattern or practice of
persecution. Courts have found that Roma who face similar deprivations, discrimination,
and marginalization in other European counties do not face a pattern or practice of
persecution. As the Court of Appeals fo r the Seventh Circuit has explained: “ T here is no
doubt that the Roma are victims of pervasive discrimination in employment, education,
health care, and housing, and are occasionally the targets of violence

. But there is no

indication that the Bulgarian government sanctions this conduct .” 12

Ciupangel argues that the Roma in Romania suffer from economic disadvantages
and deprivations to a greater degree than members of the Romanian majority in Romania.

We have no reason to doubt that assertion. However, by way of comparison, we have

held that :

I n the aggregate, a fine of more than a year and a half ’ s salary; blacklisting from any government employment and from most other forms of legitimate employment; the loss of health benefits, school tuition, and food rations; and the confiscation of household furniture and appliances from a relatively poor family constitute deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage which could threaten [the] family ’ s freedom if not their lives. 13

12 Georgieva v. Holder , 751 F.3d 514, 523 (7th Cir. 2014 ) (internal citation omitted)

. 13 Li , 400 F.3d at 169.5

This record does not establish that the deprivations that Roma ni face reach that level. 14

For example, while in Romania, Ciupangel completed high school and received a

vocational education. He was also able to find work in the form of “day jobs.” 15

We do want to emphasize that we do not doubt that Romani face widespread

discrimination in Romania
, and we are not unsympathetic to the deplorable conditions

and discrimination they face . However, the law does not allow us to conclude that the
BIA erred in concluding that those deprivations do not amount to threats to life or

freedom in the asylum context.

II.
For the foregoing reasons, we must therefore deny Ciupangel’s petition for review

of th e BIA and IJ’s decision

.

14 Ciupangel provides that “ 72% of [the Romani] have no drinking water at home, 59% live in segregated neighborhoods, 27% receive education in segregated schools, and [the Romani] have a life expectancy that is seven years less than the general population.” Petitioner’s Br. at 19 (e mphasis in original) . While these conditions are deplorable, they do not rise to the level described in Li

. 15 App. 44.