NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 4 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVAN MANUYLON, AKA Ivan Manuylov, No. 17-72152
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-309-821
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 29, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Manuylon (“Manuylon”), a native and citizen of Russia, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief.1 Manuylon first
claims he likely will be tortured upon return to Russia due to his mental illness. But
the IJ found that Manuylon could afford his medication by working as an automotive
technician, and nothing in the record compels a contrary result. See Garcia-Milian
v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)). So, this “claim[] of possible torture remain[s]
speculative” at best. Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011). Further,
even if the record compelled the conclusion that Manuylon would be
institutionalized and that conditions in Russian mental institutions are tantamount to
torture, he has not established that Russian officials “created th[o]se conditions for
the specific purpose of inflicting suffering upon the patients.” Villegas v. Mukasey,
523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, the BIA properly denied CAT relief
regarding Manuylon’s mental illness.
Manuylon also claims that he likely will be tortured upon return to Russia
because he is a devout Evangelical Christian-Baptist. Although the record suggests
that Manuylon’s religious beliefs may lead to discrimination or persecution, it does
not compel the conclusion that he likely will be tortured. See Alphonsus v. Holder,
1
“We review for substantial evidence the factual findings supporting the
BIA’s decision that an applicant has not established eligibility for . . . relief under
CAT.” Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations
omitted).
2
705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing discrimination or persecution
from torture); Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 719, 721–22 (9th Cir. 2004)
(rejecting CAT relief where the record compelled the conclusion that the petitioner
would be “arrested, imprisoned, and abused” but not that he would be tortured). As
a result, the BIA properly denied CAT relief regarding Manuylon’s religious beliefs.
PETITION DENIED.
3
Ivan Manuylon v. Jefferson Sessions, III
Combined Opinion