Opinion ID: 217072
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Medical Resources For Anton and Harassment of Artjom

Text: On the other hand, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Anton's difficulty in obtaining medical care was on account of his Russian ethnicity. While his PKU diagnosis might have been delayed due to the family's ethnicity, the IJ's explanationthat simple mistake may explain the failure to test Anton or to pass the results on to his motheris also plausible. The same is true of his school placement. Anton benefits from his special-education program at a standard public school in the United States, but the fact that Estonia provides only standard schools and schools specializing in mental retardation is not evidence of persecution against ethnic Russians. Because the record does not reveal the mental abilities of any other children in the University of Tartu program, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Anton's different treatment was on account of his ethnicity. Finally, although Anton may receive inferior medical care in Estonia, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the lower-quality care will be on account of his ethnicity. Stserba also argues that the BIA inadequately explained why Artjom's harassment, on its own or in combination with the other evidence, did not amount to persecution. While the BIA should demonstrate that it has considered [the] evidence that a petitioner presents, the BIA is not required to parse or refute on the record every individual argument or document offered by the petitioner. Guo Ping Wu v. Holder, 339 Fed.Appx. 596, 603 (6th Cir.2009) (unpublished opinion). Here, the BIA concluded that, [a]lthough these incidents were not specifically noted by the Immigration Judge, they do not, either individually or cumulatively with the other evidence of record, warrant a remand for further consideration. R. 4 (BIA Op.). That language, while terse, reflects consideration of the evidence of Artjom's harassment, and the record does not compel the opposite result. The incidents involving Artjom are disturbing but resemble random crime with weak links to ethnicity. An exception is the violent assault by an assailant who called Artjom a Russian pig. However, the evidence does not suggest that the Estonian government perpetrated or acquiesced to the assault, and we are bound by circuit precedent holding that being beaten and suffer[ing] some bodily injuries from an isolated attack by civilians does not amount to persecution. Lumaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 574, 577 (6th Cir.2006). Therefore, the incidents involving Artjom were not persecution, and they do not compel the conclusion that Stserba has a well-founded fear of persecution. With regard to medical resources for Anton and Artjom's harassment, we hold only that the BIA did not act contrary to law in concluding that these events, considered individually, are not persecution. However, on remand, the BIA must consider these issues in the aggregate along with citizenship revocation and diploma invalidation. Haider, 595 F.3d at 287 (explaining that a collection of harmful events may rise to the level of persecution when considered together).