NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1324 ___________ DENYS DAVYDOV, AKA Denis Davydov, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A076-564-226) Immigration Judge: Honorable Jack H. Weil ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 20, 2020 Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 11, 2020) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Petitioner Denys Davydov, a citizen of Ukraine, was charged as removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) for having a conviction of a controlled substance violation. AR 925-26, 1453. He subsequently applied for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the basis of his Jewish religion. Before an Immigration Judges (“IJ”), who sustained the controlled substance charge, Davydov testified that he arrived in the United States from Ukraine in 1996 when he was 11 years old. AR 288. He did not remember ever practicing Judaism or attending a synagogue in Ukraine, AR 291, nor did he ever face any persecution there because of his religion, AR 296, and he did not practice Judaism in the United States, AR 293. Davydov did not have any personal knowledge of specific Jewish persecution occurring within the last several years, AR 299, and did not personally know anyone suffering from anti-Semitism, AR 294, but had heard that Jews were being persecuted in Ukraine. Davydov also noted that when he was younger, his mother would tell him to hide the fact that he was Jewish. AR 290. In support of his application for cancellation of removal, Davydov testified about the hardship he would face as he has no family in Ukraine, does not speak the language, and would likely not be able to see his mother again. AR 217, 218. The IJ denied relief on all grounds. He determined that Davydov did not merit discretionary cancellation of removal because the negative factors—namely Davydov’s two controlled substance convictions and continued drug use—outweighed the positive factors. The IJ also held that Davydov was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal because he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution and was constitute binding precedent. 2 ineligible for CAT relief because he had not demonstrated that he would face torture with the Ukrainian government’s acquiescence or consent. The BIA agreed and affirmed. This petition for review followed. We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “When the BIA issues a separate opinion,” as it did here, “we review the BIA’s disposition and look to the IJ’s ruling only insofar as the BIA defers to it.” Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010). We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence, considering whether it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals