Egor Viktorovich Rubanov v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-10261 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-10261 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-129-923 EGOR VIKTOROVICH RUBANOV, IULIIA FEDOROVNA RUBANOVA, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 30, 2017) Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 17-10261 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 2 of 7 PER CURIAM: Egor Viktorovich Rubanov (“Petitioner”), 1 a citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied asylum and withholding of removal. 2 No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. We review the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions in this case because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that when the BIA agrees with a finding of the IJ, we review both decisions). We review legal determinations de novo. Id. And we review fact determinations under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby we “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004 (en banc) (quotations omitted). We “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to 1 Petitioner’s asylum application also sought derivative relief for his wife, Iuliia Fedorovna Rubanova, who is listed as a petitioner in this appeal. Our decision about Petitioner also applies to Rubanova. 2 The IJ also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture. This claim is not before us on appeal: Petitioner failed to challenge this denial in his appeal to the BIA and has failed to raise the issue in his appellate brief. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 2006); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 Case: 17-10261 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 3 of 7 the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1027. To reverse a fact determination, we must conclude “that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). An alien may obtain asylum if he is a “refugee,” that is, a person unable or unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected ground, including political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a)(1), (b)(1). The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status with specific and credible evidence. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005). In support of his application for relief, Petitioner contended that he suffered persecution on account of his refusal to support the United ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals