Opinion ID: 3002142
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jewish ethnicity and religion

Text: In addition to his other social group memberships, Mr. Kholyavskiy also maintains that he will endure future persecution on the basis of his Jewish identity.2 1 The BIA and the IJ both determined that Mr. Kholyavskiy had not demonstrated that his fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable given current country conditions.2 2 First, the department of State’s country reports indicate that while Jews continue to face societal discrimination, prejudice, and occasional acts of violence, there does not appear to be a pattern of systemic abuse against Jews which rises to the level of persecution. Further, Jewish leaders have publicly said that the state-sponsored anti-Semitism of the Soviet era no longer exists in Russia. 21 The BIA recognized that “the respondent’s Jewish background can constitute more than one protected ground under the Act.” A.R. at 4. 22 “The case-specific establishment of a well-founded fear of future persecution encompasses objective and subjective elements. To satisfy the subjective component, an individual must show that he has a genuine fear of returning to his home country. To satisfy the objective component, the applicant must demonstrate that a reasonable person in his circumstances would fear persecution if forced to return to his native country.” Kllokoqi v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 336, 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 38 No. 07-1020 A.R. at 323; see also A.R. at 477-78 (decision of the IJ noting the Russian government’s official condemnation of antiSemitism, efforts by the government to combat hatebased crimes, and statements by Jewish leaders that the government has been taking steps to combat anti-Semitism). These conclusions find support in the record. See A.R. at 1012 (country report). The record as a whole reveals that “Jews continued to face prejudice, discrimination and some acts of violence,” without, however, the official imprimatur of the Soviet regime. Id. Indeed, such actions likely will be met with official condemnation and possibly prosecution, although the response varies widely accordingly to locale. Id. at 1043. In short, the record does not paint a picture of an ethnically and religiously tolerant Russia; however, that is not the focus of the asylum law. The question for purposes of the asylum law is whether Mr. Kholyavskiy, as a Jew, will be persecuted on that basis if returned to Russia. “Persecution is something a government does, either directly or by abetting (and thus becoming responsible for) private discrimination by throwing in its lot with the deeds or by providing protection so ineffectual that it becomes a sensible inference that the government sponsors the misconduct.” Hor v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 482, 485 (7th Cir. 2005). Based on the evidence before the BIA, we cannot say that the record compels a conclusion that, if returned to Russia, Mr. Kholyavskiy will be persecuted by the Russian government. For the same reasons, we cannot say that Mr. Kholyavskiy has met his burden under the CAT to establish that, if removed, he will more likely than not be tortured by the Russian government. See 8 C.F.R. No. 07-1020 39 § 208.16(c)(2) (“The burden of proof is on the applicant . . . to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”). We note that the burden was on Mr. Kholyavskiy, in the first instance, to establish future persecution and that our review of the BIA’s determination as to whether Mr. Kholyavskiy met his burden is based on the record before us and is highly deferential. Our decision, therefore, has no bearing on whether, on remand, the Government will be able to rebut any presumption of future persecution based on the conditions in Russia at that time.