FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KOSTYANTYN OLEKSANDROVYCH No. 11-71604
BULANOV,
Agency No. A098-131-865
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO, Senior
District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Kostyantyn Oleksandrovych Bulanov petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition.
“Where, as here, the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law,
‘our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s
opinion is expressly adopted.’” Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir.
2011) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “We will
‘reverse the BIA’s decision that an applicant is ineligible for asylum only if a
reasonable fact-finder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution
existed.’” Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Chand
v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000)).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bulanov failed to
establish past persecution. His experiences, and those of his family and his
churches, individually or collectively, do not compel the conclusion that Bulanov
suffered past persecution. See id. at 1016-18.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bulanov
failed to established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Even in the case of
conscientious objectors, “forced conscription or punishment for evasion of military
2
duty generally does not constitute persecution.” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1187 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, Bulanov presented no evidence that would
compel the conclusion that the Ukranian government “would target him for
conscription or punishment on account of his religion.” Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395
F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2005). Bulanov also pointed to no “‘credible, direct, and
specific evidence’” that would compel the conclusion that he will be persecuted on
account of his religion independently of conscription or punishment for evasion.
Rusak v. Holder, 734 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Duarte de Guinac v.
INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999)).
3. Because the standard for withholding is “more stringent than the well-
founded fear standard governing asylum,” Bulanov also fails to qualify for
withholding. Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (internal quotation marks omitted).
4. Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bulanov
“has not shown past torture or established that it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured in the future by or with the acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity for the Ukranian government.” See Go
v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION DENIED.
3