Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sergii Serhiyovych SELIVANOV, aka Sergey Selivanov, aka Sergii Sergeyevich Selivanov, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ***
Sergii Selivanov (“Selivanov”), a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny his petition.1
Selivanov is not entitled to asylum on the basis of past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The incidents of physical and verbal harassment Selivanov suffered because of his mixed Russian-Ukrainian heritage do not compel a finding of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 973, 975–76 (9th Cir. 2009).
Nor is Selivanov entitled to asylum on the basis of a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted because of his Russian heritage, support of the Party of Regions, or adherence to Evangelical Christianity. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). Selivanov’s evidence does not compel the conclusion that the allegedly disfavored groups to which he belongs are systematically persecuted, or that he will be singled out for persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)). Because Selivanov does not satisfy the standard for asylum, he cannot meet the “more stringent” standard for withholding of removal, either. Ochave v. I.N.S., 254 F.3d 859, 868 (9th Cir. 2001).
Nor is Selivanov entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture. He presented no evidence compelling the conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured should he return to Ukraine, let alone by or with the acquiescence of Ukrainian officials. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we reject Selivanov’s claim that the Immigration Judge’s alleged bias against Ukrainian asylum-seekers denied him due process.
PETITION DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Petitioner’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Dkt. #12) is denied as moot.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-71117
Decided: May 29, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)