NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-3261 ___________ KYRIL VASHCHENKA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-101-653) Immigration Judge: Jack H. Weil ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 7, 2022 Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 28, 2022) ____________________________________ ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Kyril Vashchenka, a citizen of Belarus, has filed a petition for review challenging a final order of removal. For the reasons detailed below, we will deny the pe- tition. Vashchenka entered the United States in 2017 on a visitor’s visa and overstayed. In 2019, he drove his car while intoxicated and caused an accident that killed the other driver. He was convicted of aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3735.1(a) and was sentenced to 11½ to 23 months’ impris- onment. He was then charged with being removable for being present in the United States in violation of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)(B). He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Vashchenka removable as charged. Vashchenka tes- tified in support of his applications. He claimed that he opposed the government of Belarus; that he was threatened and beaten up by police; and that he was jailed. However, on cross- examination, the Government showed that Vashchenka’s passport revealed that he had been traveling internationally on business during the time he alleged to have been impris- oned. The IJ denied all relief, concluding that Vashchenka’s conviction qualified as a * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 “particularly serious crime” that rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), and, alternatively, that Vashchenka was not entitled to relief because he had not testified credibly. The IJ likewise concluded that Vashchenka had not shown he was entitled to CAT relief. Vashchenka appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The BIA first agreed with the IJ’s determination that Vashchenka’s crime was particularly serious. The BIA then affirmed the IJ’s alternative adverse-credibility decision, noting that Vash- chenka had waived any challenge to this issue by failing to challenge it on appeal. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s rejection of the CAT claim. Finally, the BIA noted that Vashchenka had presented new evidence—a toxicology report and an investigation report related to his 2019 conviction—and it therefore understood him to seek remand to properly submit this evidence. However, it denied that implied request because the evidence was previously available and would not have made a difference. Vashchenka filed a petition for review. 1 While Vashchenka argues at some length that his conviction does not qualify as a par- ticularly serious crime that bars him from …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals