NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARTEM ANATOLYEVICH VOVK, No. 17-72509 19-71118 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-547-335 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. In Appeal No. 17-72509, Petitioner Artem Anatolyevich Vovk (“Vovk”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 2017 order denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In Appeal No. 19-71118, Vovk petitions for review of the BIA’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). order denying his motion for reconsideration, which sought to terminate his immigration proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). We deny both petitions. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Vovk’s CAT claim. The immigration judge sufficiently considered the documentary evidence and witness testimony regarding country conditions in Ukraine. Although Vovk may have suffered anti-Semitic discrimination in the past, he suffered no harm rising to the level of “torture” as defined under CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1201 (9th Cir. 2007). Nor did the documentary evidence demonstrate any significant recent occurrence of anti-Semitic violence in the country, especially since President Poroshenko took power in 2014. Vovk did not bear his burden of showing it was more probable than not he would face torture by or with the acquiescence of an official or someone acting in an official capacity if returned to the Ukraine. See Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 662–63 (9th Cir. 2019). The BIA also did not err in denying Vovk’s motion to reconsider and terminate under Pereira. Vovk argued that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings because his initial Notice to Appear did not designate the date and time of his hearing. Vovk’s argument has since been foreclosed by this court’s 2 precedent in Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893–95 (9th Cir. 2020).1 PETITIONS DENIED. 1 Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition in Lieu of Answering Brief [Dkt. Entry #35] is denied as moot. 3 17-72509 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Artem Vovk v. William Barr 22 October 2020 Agency Unpublished e51e12bf19189bd2c387ad420ac68ab95d6eb088
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals