Case: 19-11347 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11347 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-412-438 VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH TRETIAKOV, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 20, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-11347 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 2 of 9 Petitioner Vladimir Vladimirovich Tretiakov, a native of Russia, seeks review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). Tretiakov claims that he suffered past persecution in Russia based on several incidents of mistreatment against himself and an attack against his father. Additionally, Tretiakov argues that he established a well-founded fear of future persecution. I. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will also review the IJ’s decision to that extent. Id. On appeal from the BIA’s decision, we review legal determinations de novo. Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2010). Because we review factual determinations under the substantial evidence test, “we must ‘affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id. (quoting Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283-84). “[W]e review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the 2 Case: 19-11347 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 3 of 9 agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. (quotation omitted). Hence, “a finding of fact will be reversed only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Id. (quotation omitted). To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant has the burden of proving that he is a “refugee,” which is defined as: [A]ny person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . political opinion. Diallo, 596 F.3d at 1332; see also Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To meet this burden, the alien must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a “well-founded fear” that the statutorily listed factor will cause such future persecution. Diallo, 596 F.3d at 1332 (citing 8 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals