Case: 18-11362 Date Filed: 11/07/2018 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11362 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A016-087-611 INGA BARYSHEVA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 7, 2018) Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-11362 Date Filed: 11/07/2018 Page: 2 of 10 Inga Barysheva, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. After review, we deny Barysheva’s petition. I. IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS A. Underlying Removal Proceedings On May 17, 2010, Barysheva, a native and citizen of Ukraine, arrived in the United States as a crewmember on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship with a non- immigrant C1/D visa1 and was refused permission to land. On June 8, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served her with a Form I-863 Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, placing her in asylum-only proceedings because she expressed fear of returning to Ukraine. Because she was placed in asylum- only proceedings, the only relief Barysheva could pursue was asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(c)(1)(i)(B), (3)(i) (an alien crewmember who has been refused permission to land is not entitled to proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and may pursue only asylum and withholding of removal); see also Nreka v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 408 F.3d 1361, 1366 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005) (an alien in asylum-only proceedings “is limited exclusively to 1 A C1/D visa allows alien crewmembers on commercial sea vessels to travel to the United States to join their vessel and to work on the vessel while it is in a U.S. port. 2 Case: 18-11362 Date Filed: 11/07/2018 Page: 3 of 10 asylum-related relief,” and “cannot contest admissibility, removability, or raise claims concerning [her] eligibility for other forms of relief”). In August 2010, Barysheva, pro se, submitted an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Though she indicated that her application was based on her religion and nationality, Barysheva’s application primarily focused on her claims that her Italian-citizen husband, Filippo Romano, was abusive and had kidnapped their son, and that she was detained and threatened by Italian police in 2008 when she went to Italy to check on her son. Similarly, though Barysheva indicated on her application that she feared returning to her home country of Ukraine, the only explanation she provided was also related to her issues with her husband. Specifically, Barysheva asserted that Ukraine was still a developing democracy where anybody involved in her son’s kidnapping could have her “arrested, imprisoned, confined, [or] killed” by bribing Ukrainian government officials. Barysheva’s hearing testimony likewise focused on her issues with her husband, Romano, and her arrest by Italian authorities, and Barysheva admitted that no one in Ukraine ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals