Opinion ID: 164260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: BIA's factual finding and legal analysis regarding persecution

Text: 24 Petitioners next argue that the BIA made a clearly erroneous factual determination and applied an improper legal standard in determining that the harm Petitioners suffered at the hands of the Cossacks did not qualify as persecution. Pet'rs' Opening Br. at 25. We have held that `the possible persecution to be established by an alien in order for him to be eligible for asylum may come from a non-government agency which the government is unwilling or unable to control.' Krastev v. INS, 292 F.3d 1268, 1275-76 (10th Cir.2002) (quoting Bartesaghi-Lay v. INS, 9 F.3d 819, 822 (10th Cir.1993)). The BIA member essentially incorporated and applied that standard when he observed that Vera did not convince the Board that those individuals [the Cossacks] were in any way acting on behalf of the Russian government, or that the government makes no attempts to control those types of individuals. Order, Admin. R. at 2. Indeed, making no attempt to control suggests an unwillingness to control. The BIA member therefore adequately conveyed the proper standard. 9 25 Petitioners argue further that, even if the BIA member expressed the proper legal test, his conclusion that petitioners failed to show that the Russian government was unwilling to control the Cossacks was not supported by the administrative record. Rather, they assert that it is clear that not only is the Russian government at all levels unable and unwilling to control the Cossacks, the government in fact supports the Cossacks and incorporates them into local governments. Pet'rs' Opening Br. at 27. Because we conclude, infra, that petitioners fail to establish that they suffered past persecution, or have a well-founded fear of future persecution, at the hands of individuals they identify as Cossacks, we do not have to address this issue.