Opinion ID: 217072
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stserba's Job Opportunities

Text: The record compels the conclusion that invalidation of Stserba's medical degree was persecution on account of her ethnicity.
Economic deprivation constitutes persecution only when the resulting conditions are sufficiently severe. Daneshvar, 355 F.3d at 624 n. 9; see also In re J-H-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 196, 200 (B.I.A. 2007) (Enforcement efforts resulting in moderate economic impact would not, in general, prove a well-founded fear of future persecution.). Destitution or total deprivation of livelihood, however, is not required. Government sanctions that reduce an applicant to an impoverished existence may amount to persecution even if the victim retains the ability to afford the bare essentials of life. In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 174. For example, a sweeping limitation of opportunities to continue to work in an established profession or business may amount to persecution even though the applicant could otherwise survive, although it is le[ss] likely to qualify as persecution by itself  than is a particularly onerous fine or large-scale confiscation of property. Id. (emphasis added); cf. In re Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 234 (B.I.A.1985) (requiring an unskilled taxi driver to change jobs or cooperate with guerrillas to avoid persecution because persecution was on account of his profession, not membership in a protected social group), overruled on other grounds by INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Generally applicable laws can be the source of a petitioner's persecution. Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226-27 (2d Cir.2006). The IJ found that Stserba was not persecuted when her diploma was invalidated for two reasons, neither of which is supported by substantial evidence. First, the IJ stated that the respondent testified that from the time of the birth of her son, Anton, until she got the job in the Russian school, she worked as a babysitter. That's precisely the employment that she holds in the United States today, and she likely could find similar employment in Estonia. A.R. 70 (I.J.Op.). Given the BIA's construction of economic persecution in In re T-Z-, the IJ's delineation of Stserba's field of employment is not supported by substantial evidence. Babysitting is not Stserba's established profession. After her maternity leave ended and Stserba attempted to resume employment as a doctor, she was forced to babysit and perform other housework because she had to survive somehow. A.R. 317 (Stserba Aff. ¶ 15). The discrimination against ethnic Russians in the medical field culminated in the invalidation of Russian diplomas, which made it nearly impossible for Stserba to work as a pediatrician. Even if jobs in other fields are available, a petitioner has been persecuted if he or she has been subject to sweeping limitations on his or her chosen profession, particularly if that profession is a highly skilled one in which the person invested education or training. The IJ's second reason also lacks support in the record. According to the IJ, Stserba, despite her invalid diploma, was able to obtain employment as a doctor eventually in a private Russian school, and there is no evidence to suggest that she could not once again obtain employment as a physician at a Russian school in Estonia. A.R. 70, 76 (IJ Op.). Even if Stserba might find a private Russian school willing to employ her, Estonia still instituted a sweeping limitation of job opportunities that are otherwise available to pediatricians. Moreover, the IJ ignored the evidence in the record suggesting that Stserba may not find a job at a Russian school. Stserba testified that the school where she once worked has replaced her, A.R. 180, and that state laws are changing and scruples [are] changing too, leaving fewer Russian schools and less independence for those that remain, id.; see also A.R. 362-63 (Open Society Institute Report) (describing laws that may reduce the number of Russian language educational institutions in Estonia and that will require 60% of instruction to occur in the Estonian language); A.R. 418 (Delfi Article) (In Russian schools Estonians become Directors more often, while more Russian teachers without enough training teach the Estonian language.). Substantial evidence does not support the IJ's conclusion that invalidation of Stserba's diploma was not persecution.
The IJ determined that Estonia's policy was not based on ethnicity because the policy invalidated diplomas that anyone, regardless of ethnicity, earned at Russian schools. This conclusion fails to take into account that it seems inevitable that the policy disproportionately impacted ethnic Russians, who are more likely than other Estonians to have the language skills to attend and the interest in attending a Russian school. Critically, the IJ acknowledged that Estonia's policy of diploma invalidation probably was the result of pent-up frustration resulting from years of Soviet rule. A.R. 69 (IJ Op.). That finding shows that the persecution was motivated ..., at least in part, on account of an enumerated ground. Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602, 608 (6th Cir.2010). Even if other motivesfor example, an unlikely but conceivable determination that Russian schools are systemically inadequatealso could have motivated the policy, ethnicity was one motivating factor. The only evidence about Estonia's policy for schools outside Estonia and Russia is that Stserba, when asked whether the policy appl[ied] to all foreign diplomas, responded Not at all. It's only for Russians received in Soviet Union. A.R. 129 (2/21/08 Hr'g Tr., Stserba). It is possible that Stserba was testifying about the particular policy that affected Russians; there may be other policies that invalidate diplomas from other countries. The evidence about Estonia's general practice is sparse, but its policy with regard to Russia is clear. The evidence compels the conclusion that Estonia invalidated Russian diplomas, at least in part, on account of ethnicity. In sum, Stserba's job limitations amount to past persecution on account of ethnicity. Because we conclude that Stserba suffered past persecution, we REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings and to determine in the first instance whether petitioners are entitled to a discretionary grant of asylum. Gilaj, 408 F.3d at 290; see also Mapouya, 487 F.3d at 411.