Daniel Alexandruk v. Jefferson Sessions, 692 F. App'x 418

Petitioners Daniel Alexandruk and his wife Tereza seek review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; Tereza’s claim is derivative of Daniel’s.
Alexandruk alleged past mistreatment in the Czech Republic tied to his religion/perceived ethnicity, including bullying by peers, a teacher, and coworkers, some incidents occurring when he was a child.
The BIA evaluated cumulative mistreatment, youth at the time of many incidents, psychological harm, and other record evidence but concluded the mistreatment did not rise to persecution.
Because the BIA found no past persecution, it required Alexandruk to demonstrate a well‑founded fear of future persecution; the BIA found his feared harms were non‑persecutory (e.g., job difficulties, less desirable assignments).
The BIA denied asylum, withholding of removal (as derivative of asylum failure), and CAT relief for failure to show it was more likely than not he would be tortured on return; a humanitarian asylum claim was unexhausted.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, concluding the BIA’s decisions were free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA erred legally in assessing past persecution	Alexandruk: BIA failed to account for cumulative harm, youth, psychological injury, and continuing effects	BIA: considered cumulative effects, youth, psychological harm; applied correct legal standard	Denied — no legal error in BIA’s analysis
Whether mistreatment rose to level of past persecution	Alexandruk: bullying, teacher and workplace mistreatment amounted to persecution	Government: incidents were harassment/discrimination, not persecution	Denied — substantial evidence supports that incidents did not constitute persecution
Whether Alexandruk has a well‑founded fear of future persecution	Alexandruk: may face job discrimination or unfavorable assignments due to religion/nationality	Government: feared harms are non‑persecutory and speculative	Denied — fear does not amount to well‑founded fear of persecution
Eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief	Alexandruk: alternatively seeks withholding and CAT protection	Government: withholding fails if asylum standard unmet; no clear probability of torture shown	Denied — withholding fails with asylum; CAT relief denied for lack of likelihood of torture

Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for substantial‑evidence review of BIA factual findings)
Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2009) (persecution requires more than harassment or discrimination)
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2009) (cumulative incidents and youth can be relevant to persecution analysis)
Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing harassment from persecution)
Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2007) (well‑founded fear standard for asylum)
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for CAT relief and likelihood of torture)
Halim v. I.N.S., 358 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to meet asylum standard precludes withholding relief)