Court Opinion

ID: 9353898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 01:00:22.787916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:09:33.586871
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60174     Document: 00516608977         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/12/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                  No. 22-60174
                                                                            FILED
                                                                     January 12, 2023
                                Summary Calendar
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   Ivan Lebedev,

                                                                      Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A206 243 381

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Ivan Lebedev, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of a
   decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
   and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60174        Document: 00516608977           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                       No. 22-60174

   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (CAT).
             On review of an order of the BIA, this court examines “the BIA’s
   decision and only consider[s] the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced
   the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the
   BIA agreed with the IJ’s analysis and conclusions, we review both decisions.
   See id.
             This court reviews the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence,
   and it will not reverse such findings unless the petitioner shows that “the
   evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
   against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009). Among
   the findings that this court reviews for substantial evidence are the factual
   conclusions that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
   or relief under the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
   2005).
             Lebedev first argues that the BIA erred in finding that he failed to
   show past persecution based on his religious beliefs. He points to his
   testimony about being ridiculed and physically abused by his classmates in
   Russia because he was Baptist.
             This court has previously held that substantial evidence supported a
   finding of no past persecution where the mistreatment described consisted of
   “mere denigration, harassment, and threats.” Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d
   182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). As such, the BIA reasonably found that Lebedev
   had failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
             Lebedev also argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s
   determination that his subjective fear of persecution, which was confirmed
   by the IJ’s credibility finding, was not objectively reasonable. See Zhao v.
   Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). Citing INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,

                                            2
Case: 22-60174        Document: 00516608977             Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                         No. 22-60174

   480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987), Lebedev argues that even a 10% chance of
   persecution in Russia is sufficient to establish the reasonableness of his fear.
           In this court’s post Cardoza-Fonseca decisions, however, we have
   “applied a reasonable person standard when making well-founded fear of
   persecution determinations.” Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 305 & nn.6-7
   (5th Cir. 1997); see also Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 910 n.2 (5th Cir. 2019)
   (reading Cardoza-Fonseca as stating simply that the requisite “reasonable
   possibility” of harm need not be “more likely than not”). In Lebedev’s case,
   the BIA reasonably concluded that Lebedev failed to show a “reasonable
   possibility” that he would suffer persecution in Russia based on his Baptist
   faith. See Qorane, 919 F.3d at 910 n.2.
           Lebedev’s remaining arguments on the issue of his well-founded fear
   of future persecution are essentially a disagreement with how the BIA
   weighed the IJ’s factual findings. 1 “The BIA may not overturn an IJ’s factual
   findings simply because the Board would have weighed the evidence
   differently or decided the facts differently had it been the factfinder.”
   Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder, 585 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
           The BIA’s determination that Lebedev is not eligible for asylum or
   withholding of removal because he did not establish past persecution or a
   well-founded fear of future persecution in Russia is supported by substantial

           1
            Lebedev also claims that the IJ violated his due process rights and substantially
   prejudiced his case by failing to make factual findings related to the prevalence of
   “dedovshchina” or hazing in the Russian military. Though the IJ did not specifically
   reference the term dedovshchina, the IJ acknowledged the existence of hazing in the
   Russian military, and it is clear from the IJ’s decision that he considered the relevant
   documentary evidence regarding the practice. Because the IJ’s decision reflects a
   “meaningful consideration” of Lebedev’s claims of hazing in the military, Lebedev’s due
   process argument is without merit. Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996).

                                               3
Case: 22-60174      Document: 00516608977          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                    No. 22-60174

   evidence. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. Because those findings are dispositive,
   this court need not consider Lebedev’s remaining challenge to the BIA’s
   nexus analysis. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
           Finally, Lebedev argues that this court should take into account the
   international condemnation of the Russian Army’s actions in its current war
   in Ukraine and its actions in eastern Ukraine since 2014, contending that his
   refusal to join such an army constitutes an exception to the general rule that
   military conscription cannot serve as the basis for an asylum claim. To the
   extent Lebedev seeks consideration of events occurring before the current,
   ongoing war, he did not exhaust his contention, and this court lacks
   jurisdiction to consider it. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353,
   359-60 (5th Cir. 2022). To the extent he relies on events during the current
   war, the proper vehicle for his argument is a motion for the BIA to reopen his
   proceedings. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 1994).
           The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
   part.

                                         4