2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-12-2010 

# T atyan a S old at e nk

o v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2639

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T atyan a S o ld at e nko v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 974. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/974NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2639

___________ T AT YANA S OL DAT E NKO, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 96 253 609) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R . K . M al l oy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y7, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y12, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM T a ty a n a S o ld a ten k o p e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

a B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) deci s i on di s m i s s i ng herappea l of an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on d e n y i n g h e ra p p l i c a t i o n s f o rr e l i e f f r o m r e mo v a l . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2

S o ld a ten k o is a n a tiv e o f th e S o v iet U n io n a n d c iti z e n o f th e U k ra in e w h o c a m e to t he U ni t ed St at es i n 2002. I n 2003, a not i ce t o appea rw as i s s ued cha r gi ng that Sol dat enko w as s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e s he w as pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es w i t hout h a v in g b e e n a d m itt e d o r p a ro led . T h ro u g h c o u n se l, S o ld a ten k o c o n c e d e d th a t sh e is r emovabl e as char ged. T he I J cons i der ed Sol dat enko’ s appl i cat i ons forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T he I J found Sol dat enko’ s as y l um appl i cat i on t i m e- barr ed. S o ldaten k o test ifi ed that sh e is a B ap ti st, that sh e w en t t o a p ray er h o u se e v ery Sundayas a chi l d, and thats he w as bapt i zed i n 1987 atthe age of 23. Sol dat enko s t at ed t hat , aft ert he bapt i s m al cer emony , ei ghtt o t en men dr es s ed i n bl ack w i t h t he U kr ai ni an N a tio n a l D e f

e n se sy m b o l “U N O ” o n th e ir sle e v e s e m e rg e d f ro m tw o c a rs. A c c o rd in g to S o ld a te n k o , th e m e n s c re a m e d a n d c u rs e d a n d b e a t u p th e p e o p le p re s e n t a t th e c e re m o n y . S h e sta ted th a t sh e w a s h it w ith a stic k , los t co n sc io u sn e ss , an d w o k e u p in th e h o sp ital, w her e s he r emai ned forone w eek. Sol dat enko w as an outpat i entatthe hos pi t al forthe nextt hr ee mont hs . Sol dat enko’ s pas t orr epor t ed the att ack t o t he pol i ce butno act i on w as t aken. A ft erherbapt i s m , Sol dat enko bec ame m or e ac t i ve i n t he chur ch and di s t r i but ed li terature. S o ldaten k o stat ed that, w h en sh e re turn ed to w o rk, fo u r co -w o rke rs be at he r, cur s ed ather , and made der ogat or ycomm ent s aboutherfai t h. Sol dat enko t ol d a s upervi s or , w ho di d nott ake a nyact i on. Sol dat enko furthert es t i fi ed thats he w as at t acke d fi ve t i m es fr om 1992 t o 2000 by3

m en dr es s ed i n t he bl ack na t i onal i s tuni form . T he fi r s ti nci dentoccurr ed i n 1992 atthe entr ance t o Sol dat enko’ s apart m ent . T he men at t acke d her , cur s ed ather , and ment i oned herfai t h. Sol dat enko s uffe r ed brui s es and s cr at ches . Sol dat enko t es t i fi ed thatthe next a tta c k o c c u rr e d in 1 9 9 6 w h ile s h e w a s d is tr ib u tin g re lig io u s lite ra tu re in th e c o u n tr y s id e . S h e su f f e re d b ru ise s o n h e r b o d ya n d a b lo o d ylip . S o ld a ten k o w a s tre a ted a t a h o sp ital, w her e s he s t ay ed fort w o hour s . T he thi r d att ack oc curr ed i n 1998. A ft erat t endi ng the openi ng cer emonyof a ne w chur ch, fournat i onal i s t s appr oache d herand hers on. T he m e n s tru c k h e r o n th e k n e e w ith a k n if e a n d th re a te n e d to k ill h e r i f th e ys a w h e r a g a in . T he men al s o ki cked he rs on. Sol dat enko s t at ed thats he w as hos pi t al i zed f orpai ns i n her ches tand thats he has a s caron herknee. She w as r el eas ed af t ers ever al hour s and re tu rn e d to th e h o s p ita l a s a n o u tp a tie n t f o r a b o u t o n e w e e k . S o l d a t e n k o t e s t i f

i e d t o a f o u r t h a t t a c k i n 2 0 0 0 , wh i c h o c c u r r e d o n th e wa yh o me f ro m w o rk . T h re e n a tio n a lists g o t o u t o f a c a r, atta c k e d h e r f

a ith , an d tried to p u ll h e r in to t he ca rt o r ape he r . Sol dat enko fe l l , i nj ur i ng herl ow erback a nd s pi ne. A n ambul ance t ook hert o t he hos pi t al , w her e s he r emai ned fors ever al hour s . She r eturned t o t he hos pi t al as an outpat i entforaboutt hr ee w eeks . Fi nal l y , Sol dat enko t es t i fi ed thati n 2001 a man came t o herhous e and pos ed as a mai l m an. W hen Sol dat enko opene d t he door , t he m a n m a d e a re m a rk a b o u t h e r re lig io n a n d h it h e r. S o ld a ten k o w a s ta k e n to th e h o sp ital, r el eas ed af

t ert hr ee hour s , and r etur ned as an outpat i entforabouttw o w eeks . A ft ereac h of the i nci dent s , Sol dat enko fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i t h t he pol i ce butno act i on w as t aken.4

S o ld a te n k o le f

t th e U k ra in e in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2 a f te r r e c e iv in g a th re a te n in g le tte r. S h e sta ted th a t sh e f

e a rs r e tu rn in g to th e U k ra in e b e c a u se sh e b e liev e s th a t n a tio n a lists w i l l harm her . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, Sol dat enko s t at ed thatherhus band, w ho s he m arr i ed i n 1982, came t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1996 beca us e he w as per s ecut ed on ac count of hi s J ew i s h r el i gi on. Sol dat enko s t at ed thatherhus band coul d corr obor at e her t es t i m ony , buthe fe ar ed comi ng t o cour tbeca us e he i s s ubj ectt o a fi nal or derof depor t at i on. T he G overnm ental s o poi nt ed outon cr os s - exami nat i on thatSol dat enko t es t i fi ed thats he r epor t ed al l of the att acks t o t he pol i ce, butheraff i davi tr efl ect ed that s he onl yr epor t ed one a t t ack. I n addi t i on, the G overnm entpoi nt ed outthatSol dat enko h a d o m itte d th e f

a c t o f h e r s o n ’s b e a tin g in h e r a f f id a v it. T h e IJ d e n ied S o ld a ten k o ’s a p p lica tio n s f o r re lief. T h e IJ n o ted th a t, w h ile Sol dat enko t es t i fi ed thatt he att ack on the dayof herbapt i s m occurr ed af t erthe bapt i s m al cer emony , s he s t at ed i n herw r i t t en af fi davi tthatthe att ack oc curr ed bef or e the ce r emony t ook pl ace . T he I J al s o s t at ed thatSol dat enko had s ubm i t t ed l ett er s fr om herm otherand fr i ends , buts he had s ubm i t t ed no obj ect i ve evi dence corr obor at i ng hert es t i m onythats he w a s a p ra c tic in g B a p tis t in th e U k ra in e , th a t s h e w a s b a p tiz e d , o r t h a t s h e w a s p e rs e c u te d . T he I J fur thers t at ed thatSol dat enko di d nots ubm i tanyevi dence t o s uppor ther cl ai m t hatt her e ar e gr oups of m en, dr es s ed i n bl ack, at t acki ng w om en and c hi l dr en on the s t r eet s on acc ountof thei rB apt i s tr el i gi on. T he I J bel i eved thatthi s type of be havi or w oul d be document ed i n countr yr epor t s i f i toccurr ed. T he I J al s o not ed thatSol dat enko5

di d notauthent i cat e s ever al document s purpor t i ng t o be medi cal not es r efl ect i ng tr ea tm en t fo r i n

juri es sh e su stai n ed in the att ac k s. T h e IJ stated that S o ldaten k o ’s fa il u re t o pr es entobj ect i ve, cr edi bl e evi dence w as s i gni fi cantbeca us e hert es t i m onyw as i n di r ect contr as tt o al l of the countr yr epor t s , w hi ch r efl ect ed r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on i n t he U kr ai ne, butno per s ecut i on agai ns tB apt i s t s oran unw i l l i ngnes s t o pr ot ectB apt i s t s . T he IJ no ted th at th e 2 0 0 8 D ep artm en t of S tat e P rof

il e o f A sy lum C lai m s an d C o u n try C ondi t i ons r efl ect s r api d gr ow t h i n B apt i s tchur ches and mem ber s hi p. T he I J concl uded t hat Soldat enk o fail ed to est abli sh t hat s he w as pers ecuted on accou nt of her B apti st r el i gi on, t hatt her e w as a cl earpr obabi l i t ythats he w oul d be per s ecut ed, orthatany one w oul d be i nt er es t ed i n t or tur i ng herupon r eturn t o U kr ai ne. T h e B IA d ism issed S o ldaten k o ’s ap p ea l. T h e B IA ag ree d that S o ldaten k o ’s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el yand thats he di d notm eetherbur dens of pr oof for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d C A T p rotec ti o n . T h e B IA stat ed that the IJ p ro v id e d a n a d e q u a te b a sis f o r h e r f in d in g th a t S o ld a ten k o f a iled to p re se n t cr e d ib le evi dence i n s uppor tof heracc ount , not i ng the i ncons i s t entevi dence as t o w hen the att ack occu rr ed o n the dayof h er bapt i sm and w hethershe fi l ed p oli ce report s aft er the att acks, and the omi s s i on of hers on’ s beat i ng fr om heraff i davi t . T he B I A s t at ed thatSol dat enko d id n o t s h o w th a t th e h a rm s h e a lle g e d a c tu a lly o c c u rr e d . T h e B IA f

u rth e r sta ted th a t, i n lig h t o f th e c re d ib ili typ ro b lem s, th e IJ a p p ro p ria tely r e q u i r e d c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e . Th e BI A r e c o g n i z e d th a tS o l d a t e n k o p r o v i d e d s o meT he G overnm enthas m oved t o di s m i s s the por t i on of Sol dat enko’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew 1 t hats eeks r evi ew of heras y l um appl i cat i on, as s ert i ng thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B IA ’s de term ination that h er a p p li ca ti o n w as u n ti m elyfil ed . S o ldaten k o , h o w ev er, does notchal l enge i n herbr i ef the rul i ng thatherappl i cat i on i s t i m e- barr ed. T he G o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n to d is m is s is th u s d e n ie d . 6 corr obor at i ng evi dence , butnot ed thats he di d notpr ovi de herhus band’ s t es t i m onyand sta ted th a t h is f

e a r o f a p p e a rin g in c o u rt d u e to h is re m o v a l o rd e r w a s n o t a r e a so n a b le ex p lana ti o n fo r th e a b sen ce o f h is t esti m o n y . T h e B IA also rejected S o ldaten k o ’s ar gum entt hatt he I J fai l ed t o cons i derthe document aryevi dence , not i ng thatthe I J had t hor oughl yanal y zed the countr ycondi t i ons and found no obj ect i ve evi dence s uppor t i ng Sol dat enko’ s cl ai m t hatB apt i s t s ar e per s ecut ed i n t he U kr ai ne. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W e re v iew the B IA ’s f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . T o u s s a in t v . A tt’ yG e n ., 455 F. 3d 409, 413 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e w i l l aff i r m the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” I d. (qu o ti n g 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )). 1 S o ld a te n k o a rg u e s th a t th e B IA ’s d e c is io n is n o t s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Fi r s t , Sol dat enko cont ends t hatherw r i t t en s t at ementaboutthe att ack on the dayof her bapt i s m does notconfl i ctw i t h hert es t i m ony . I n herw r i t t en s t at ement , Sol dat enko not ed, “W hen the pr epar at i on w as al m os tfi ni s hed and w e w er e s uppos ed t o per form the chi ef ri te in th e w a te r, a g ro u p o f n a tio n a lis ts e m e rg e d . T h e ya tta c k e d u s . . . .” A .R . a t 3 4 0 .7

Sol dat enko, how ever , t es t i fi ed thats he compl et ed the bapt i s m al cer emony , w hi ch in v o lv e d e n te ri n g th e w a te r, b e in g “ d u m p e d ” in th e w a te r, a n d th e n e x itin g th e w a te r. A . R . at170. She s t at ed thats he exi t ed the w at erand then not i ced tw o car s fr om w hi ch n ati o n ali sts r an o u t and start ed to b ea t eve ry o n e p rese n t. W e f ind n o erro r i n the B IA ’s re lia n c e o n th e d if

f e re n c e s in th e s e s ta te m e n ts to s u p p o rt a n a d v e rs e c re d ib ility f in d in g . Sol dat enko furtherar gues t hatthe B I A err ed i n r el y i ng on t he omi s s i ons fr om her w r i t t en s t at ementof the fa ct s t hats he r epor t ed al l of the att acks t o t he pol i ce a nd thather s on w as at t acke d. She as s er t s t hatt he purpos e of t es t i m onyi s t o add the det ai l s of a c laim . S o ld a ten k o ’s w ritten sta tem e n t, ho w e v e r, is d e taile d a n d p ro v id e s th a t sh e w e n t to t he pol i ce a ft ert he 1992 att ack. Sol dat enko’ s w r i t t en s t at emental s o pr ovi des that , dur i ng the 1 9 9 8 att ac k , h er so n scre am ed an d sh e started to as k the a tt ac k ers n o t t o tou ch h im . In lig h t o f th e d e tails p ro v id e d b yS o ld a ten k o in h e r w ritten sta tem e n t, w e f in d n o e rro r in t he B I A ’ s r el i ance on t he omi s s i ons of r el at ed fa ct s t o w hi ch s he t es t i fi ed i n as s es s i ng her c r e d i b i l i t y. Sol dat enko al s o chal l enges t he B I A ’ s concl us i on thatthe countr yr epor t s do not su p p o rt th e c o n c lu sio n th a t B a p tists a re p e rse c u ted in th e U k ra in e . S o ld a ten k o c o rre c tly not es t hata 2008 U kr ai ne A s y l um C ount r yPr ofi l e r efl ect s that“Evangel i cal C hr i s t i an m iss io n a rie s re p o rte d so m e in sta n c e s o f so c ieta l d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st m e m b e rs o f th e irSol dat enko s t at es t hatt he C ount r yPr ofi l e i s dat ed 1998 butthe r ecor d r efl ect s thatt he 2 Pr ofi l e w as i s s ued i n 2008. 8 chur ches [. ] ” A . R . at251. T he Pr ofi l e, how ever , fur t hers t at es thatther e i s no i ndi cat i on 2 of w i des pr ead ors y s t emat i c phy s i cal vi ol ence bynat i onal i s torot hergr oups . I n addi t i on, as r ecogni zed byt he I J , t he Pr ofi l e s t at es thataft er1991 E vangel i cal s w er e no l onger deni ed r el i gi ous fr eedom and B apt i s t s exper i ence d r api d gr ow t h i n chur ches and m e m b e rsh ip . S o ld a ten k o a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e 2 0 0 5 C o u n tryR e p o rt o n H u m a n R ig h ts Pr act i ces i n U kr ai ne corr obor at es att acks on E vangel i cal s bya nat i onal i s tgr oup named “D i al ogue. ” The C ount r yR epor t , how ever , s t at es onl ythat“Evangel i cal Pr ot es t ant l eade r s compl ai ned aboutt he ac t i vi t i es of the gr oup ‘ D i al ogue, ’ w hi ch theyand human r i ght s gr oups char act er i zed a s a fr ontgr oup forthe [U kr ai ni an O r t hodox C hur ch, M os cow P a tr ia rc h y ] t h a t p ro m o te s h o s tilit yto w a rd n o n -O rt h o d o x C h ri s tia n s .” A .R . a t 2 8 8 . Fi nal l y , Sol dat enko cont ends t hata 2004 art i cl e r efl ect s thata C hr i s t i an publ i s herw as at t acke d, l i ke her , w hi l e ans w er i ng the door . T he art i cl e al s o r efl ect s that , unl i ke Sol dat enko, t he publ i s herw as a chur ch l eade rw ho had bee n out s poken i n hi s s uppor tfor democr at i c cha nge. Sol dat enko has nots how n t hatthe r ecor d compel s the conc l us i on t hatB apt i s t s ar e per s ecut ed i n t he U kr ai ne. W e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s concl us i on that Sol dat enko di d notm eetherbur den of pr oof. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forS o ld a te n k o d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o c h a lle n g e th e re je c tio n o f

h e r C A T c la im in h e r b ri e f. 3 S h e h as th u s w aive d that claim . C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 1 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 9 r e v i e w. 3