[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 05-13624 & 05-13625 JUNE 7, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A95-220-997 & A95-220-998
ROMAN ASHNUROV,
VIRA KOSTINA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petitions for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 7, 2006)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roman Ashnurov and his wife Vira Kostina petition for review of the denial
of asylum and withholding of removal by the Immigration Judge and the Board of
Immigration Appeals. Because the record does not compel the conclusion that
Ashnurov and Kostina suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of
future persecution, we deny their petition for review of their application for asylum
and withholding of removal. Because Ashnurov and Kostina failed to appeal to the
BIA the grant of voluntary departure, we dismiss their petition for review of that
decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Ashnurov was a citizen of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
who is currently without nationality, and Kostina is a citizen of Ukraine. Ashnurov
and Kostina entered the U.S. from Estonia in late 2000 on visitor visas. On
November 26, 2001, Kostina filed a timely application for asylum that covered her
and Ashnurov. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal
proceedings on February 8, 2002. Ashnurov and Kostina conceded removability,
but argued that they were entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
At their hearing before the IJ, Ashnurov and Kostina testified to several
incidents of alleged persecution by the Ukrainian and Estonian governments based
on Ashnurov’s Russian ethnicity. Ashnurov testified that, while living in Ukraine
2
from 1997 to 1999, the Ukrainian government discriminated against him and
Kostina by delaying their application for a marriage license. Ashnurov testified
that they received “threatening telephone calls” from “Ukrainian patriots.” Neither
Ashnurov nor Kostina reported the phone calls to the police.
Ashnurov testified that, on February 23, 1998, he witnessed three unknown
men confront Kostina. When Ashnurov intervened, a fight began, and Ashnurov
was stabbed in the arms, legs, and chest. As a result of his wounds, Ashnurov was
hospitalized for over a month. Kostina reported the incident to the Ukrainian
police, but, according to her testimony, the police stated that “things like this occur
all the time and [the police] have no control over the situation.”
In the summer of 1999, Ashnurov was arrested by Ukrainian police for
failure to carry his documentation. When Kostina brought Ashnurov’s documents
to the police, they informed her that Ashnurov owed a $100 fine. Because Kostina
could not pay the fine, the police required her and Ashnurov to clean the police
station before Ashnurov could be released.
After this incident, Ashnurov and Kostina moved to Estonia. Kostina
testified that her son, who currently lives in Estonia with his grandparents, was
harassed by his classmates because he is unable to speak Estonian. Kostina
testified that her son broke his leg when he tried to escape. Ashnurov testified that
3
it was difficult for him to find work in Estonia because employers gave preferential
treatment to ethnic Estonians over ethnic Russians.
The IJ denied Ashnurov and Kostina’s application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and granted them
a voluntary departure. The IJ found that the testimony of Ashnurov and Kostina
was credible but the incidents to which Ashnurov and Kostina testified did not rise
to the level of persecution. The IJ also found that, even if the attack on Ashnurov
in February 1998 rose to the level of persecution, there was no evidence that the
Ukranian government condoned the attack, and Ashnurov and Kostina were able to
relocate to Estonia after the incidents. The BIA affirmed the decision of the IJ
without opinion.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“When the BIA issue[s] an affirmance without an opinion, the immigration
judge’s decision became the final order subject to review.” Lonyem v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 352 F.3d 1338, 1340 (11th Cir. 2003). “The IJ’s findings of fact are
conclusive unless the record demonstrates that ‘any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d
1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
4
III. DISCUSSION
To be eligible for asylum, an alien must show past “persecution or a well-
founded fear of [future] persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§
1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A); Al-Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1287 (11th Cir.
2001). The applicant for asylum bears the burden of proof. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the
applicant’s burden without corroboration[.]” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Ashnurov and Kostina erroneously argue that the record compels the
conclusion that they suffered past persecution by the Ukranian and Estonian
governments. “Persecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few
isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
No. 04-10351, at *15 (May 5, 2006) (citation and modification omitted). Most of
Ashnurov and Kostina’s alleged incidents of persecution are mere discrimination
based on Ashnurov’s Russian ethnicity. Delay in receiving a marriage license and
difficulty in obtaining employment do not rise to the level of persecution. See,
e.g., Barreto-Claro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 275 F.3d 1334, 1340 (11th Cir. 2001)
(holding that “employment discrimination which stops short of depriving an
individual of a means of earning a living does not constitute persecution”).
5
The only incident that potentially rises to the level of persecution is the
February 1998 altercation, but that incident does not compel a finding of
entitlement to asylum. Even if Ashnurov was attacked because of his Russian
ethnicity and the attack constituted persecution, Ashnurov and Kostina failed to
satisfy their burden to show eligibility for asylum based on persecution by a
nongovernmental entity. Although this Court has recognized that section 1158
“protects against persecution not only by government forces but also by
nongovernmental groups that the government cannot control,” Sanchez v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434 (11th Cir. 2004), the applicant must show that relocation
to another area is impractical. Mazariegos v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320 1326
(11th Cir. 2001). At the hearing before the IJ, Ashnurov and Kostina failed to
offer any evidence of their inability to relocate to another part of the country. After
the attack, Ashnurov and Kostina instead moved to Estonia, and Ashnurov was not
assaulted again.
The petition for review of Ashnurov and Kostina fails. We conclude that,
taken together, the incidents to which Ashnurov and Kostina testified do not
compel the conclusion that the applicants suffered past persecution. Because
Ashnurov and Kostina are not eligible for asylum and the standard for withholding
for removal is more stringent, see Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93, we conclude that
they also are not entitled to withholding of removal.
6
Ashnurov and Kostina also petition for review of the decision of the IJ to
grant, sua sponte, a voluntary departure, but they did not appeal this decision to the
BIA. This Court lacks jurisdiction over a petition to review on a ground for which
the alien failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see
also Taylor v. United States, 396 F.3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005). We dismiss
the petition for review on this ground.
IV. CONCLUSION
Ashnurov and Kostina’s petition for review is
DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
7