FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIACHESLAV DMITRIYEVICH No. 06-70471
NEVROV and YURI NEVROV,
Agency Nos. A072-115-988
Petitioners, A072-115-986
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, FISHER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Viacheslav Dmitriyevich Nevrov and his son Yuri Nevrov (collectively, the
Nevrovs) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA)
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533
F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the Nevrovs’
experiences of discrimination and harassment in Latvia do not rise to the level of
past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003). In
addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s failure to find a well-founded
fear of persecution, as the Nevrovs failed to establish the existence of an
individualized risk of persecution or a pattern or practice of persecution against
similarly situated individuals. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2007) (en banc). Although the Nevrovs may be stateless, that fact alone does
not warrant a grant of asylum. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 n.5 (9th
Cir. 2007). They are still required to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion, see id., which they have failed to do in this case.
Because the Nevrovs failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they
necessarily fail to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The Nevrovs did not
raise any challenge to the BIA’s denial of their CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano
2
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in
the opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3