United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 18, 2014*

Decided August 19, 2014

Before

      WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

      ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge      

No. 14‐1346

VITALIJUS STASEVICIUS,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

A088 702 247

O R D E R

Vitalijus Stasevicius, a Lithuanian citizen, petitions for review from the denial of

his motion to reopen his asylum proceeding. We deny the petition.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the petition is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 14‐1346 Page 2

Stasevicius entered the United States in 2010 under the Visa Waiver Program and

overstayed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187. Later that year he applied for asylum and withholding

of removal based on imputed political opinion and his membership in a social group

composed of “former associates of Arvydas Stasaitis who were employed as executives

at his company Balticam.” According to Stasevicius, Stasaitis, a Lithuanian

businessman, had been an outspoken critic of the Lithuanian government’s economic

policies, and both Stasaitis and Balticam’s financial officers were maliciously prosecuted

in the 1990s for fabricated financial crimes and imprisoned. Stasevicius said that he

feared additional prosecution if he returned to Lithuania because the government there

had recently proposed extending the statute of limitations for his alleged crimes.

Despite crediting his testimony, the immigration judge rejected Stasevicius’s

application for relief. Regarding his claim for asylum, the IJ concluded that the criminal

investigation and prosecution that he faced in Lithuania was not persecution because he

had not shown that the misconduct for which he was charged—running a Ponzi

scheme—would not also be illegal in the United States. Nor were the conditions of his

year in confinement severe enough, the IJ added, to qualify as persecution. Finally, the

IJ rejected as objectively unreasonable Stasevicius’s fear of future persecution because

the proposed change to the applicable statute of limitations was “not certain” to even be

enacted into law. The Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s ruling.

Stasevicius did not appeal but instead moved to reopen the proceedings,

asserting that new facts supported his claim that the Lithuanian government and

judicial system are corrupt and that he would again be prosecuted unfairly. In support

of the motion, he attached among other things a newspaper article showing that his

former boss was again facing prosecution for financial crimes, and a judgment showing

that a former Balticam colleague had a lien placed against his property in connection

with a private civil suit. The Board denied the motion to reopen, explaining that the

submitted evidence was not likely to change the outcome of the proceedings because it

would not help Stasevicius establish a prima facie case of eligibility for asylum. None of

the evidence, the Board concluded, showed that the IJ had erred in finding that the

Lithuanian government had a “legitimate basis” for investigating and prosecuting him.

In his petition for review, Stasevicius generally challenges the fairness of his

removal proceeding. He asks for a “mistrial” to be declared because of “discrepancies”

in the translation at his hearing, such that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

(and presumably also the IJ) was “bamboozled” with “misconstrued data.” He
No. 14‐1346 Page 3

maintains that he deserves a chance to “mount my proper defense” and that he wishes

to present “further evidence” showing that the Lithuanian government is corrupt.

To the extent that Stasevicius challenges the Board’s order upholding the denial

of his application for asylum, this petition—filed more than seven months after entry of

the order—is untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and we lack jurisdiction to review it,

see Cordova‐Soto v. Holder, 732 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2013). To the extent that he

challenges the order denying reopening—a challenge that we do have jurisdiction to

review, see Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868, 872 (7th Cir. 2011)—he fails to contest the

Board’s conclusion that the evidence supporting his motion to reopen did not establish

his eligibility for relief. See Moosa v. Holder, 644 F.3d 380, 385–87 (7th Cir. 2011).

       

DENIED.