Opinion ID: 164326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony and documents

Text: 18 Sviridov argues the IJ made various clearly erroneous factual determinations concerning Sviridov's testimony and the documents he submitted in support of his application. In support of his claim that he was severely beaten by the police when he was detained for twenty days in May 1997, Sviridov submitted a medical certificate which stated that Sviridov had been diagnosed with a brain concussion of the II degree, numerous injuries, bleeding. Admin. R. at 264. He also presented copies of the two summonses he claims he eventually received, which directed him to appear before the militsia department. Id. at 233-35. The IJ found as follows concerning those documents: 19 [T]he medical certificate and the summonses ... seem unreliable to this Court. Those documents were not authenticated as permitted under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6. The Court has no way of knowing whether these documents are authentic. There are no recognizable indicia of authenticity on those documents, which the Court can point to. 20 The respondent indicated that the medical certificate had been issued in order to cover all three incidences in which he had been arrested, this seems very unlikely. The summonses were addressed to the respondent's ex-wife. The respondent was divorced in 1983 and the summonses were issued more than 15 years after that date. It seems extremely unlikely that they would have been issued and addressed to the respondent at an address which apparently he had not lived at for 15 years. 21 The respondent claims that his propiska still shows him residing at the same address with his ex-wife. However, I would note that the respondent was involved in a maritime business. He received authorization and passports from the government relating to his status as a seaman. It would seem that his identity and whereabouts could be easily discerned by any interested authorities. 22 The fact that the authorities would not make a reasonable effort to find out his actual whereabouts, points out the lack of interest which the authorities would have in the actual locating of the respondent. The Court finds that the documents not only are unreliable, but in and of themselves, they don't support the grant of relief which the respondent requests. 23 Oral Decision of the IJ at 11-12, Admin. R. at 52-53. 24 Given our deferential standard of review, we conclude that the IJ's determination that the records in question were not reliable and did not support Sviridov's claims is supported by substantial evidence and is substantially reasonable. 7 25 Sviridov also argues the IJ mischaracterized his testimony concerning the group to which he belonged. The IJ stated he is concerned that the respondent indicated that this organization has no name and when questioned about its political theories, the respondent gave only a general description of its goals and its philosophies. Id. at 51. The IJ accurately described Sviridov's testimony on this point. Sviridov testified that the purpose of the group was to speak against [Gromov], and against Governor Konstantin [Kondratenko] which was against our beliefs. Id. at 123. When asked what his beliefs were, Sviridov responded that he was simply against the actions of Kondratenko and Gromov, because Gromov constantly lied and cheated, because he promised the employees of the company to pay their salaries at times and promised to give everybody employment, and because many people, minorities, such as Armenians and Jews who worked for the company, were fired. Id. at 123-24. The IJ's factual findings have substantial support in the record.