Opinion ID: 164326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of Sviridov's showing of future harm

Text: 30 Sviridov argues the IJ erred in finding that he had shown no basis why he would be targeted for harm. Sviridov repeats here his claim that he had adequately demonstrated that he held political opinions which put him at odds with Gromov, who would persecute him should he return to Russia. As explained above, when asked about his political views and those of the group to which he belonged, Sviridov could only respond in vague generalities, which were equally indicative of mere disgruntlement with having been fired from his job. We cannot say that the IJ's conclusion that Sviridov failed to show that he was in danger because of his political views is contrary to what a reasonable factfinder would have been compelled to conclude. Vatulev v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir.2003). 31