Egor Viktorovich Rubanov v. U.S. Attorney General
704 F. App'x 900
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rubanov, a Russian citizen, applied for asylum and withholding of removal after fleeing to the U.S.; BIA affirmed IJ denial and Rubanov petitioned for review.
- He alleged persecution after refusing to support the United Russia party: demotion and pay cut at work (2010) and pressure to allow party sponsorship of his fitness events (2012).
- Beginning 2012–2013, he was targeted by a group accusing him of pedophilia, extorted for money, publicly defamed in a newspaper, physically attacked (concussion), and his wife was threatened; police did not remedy complaints.
- Rubanov contended these harms were linked to United Russia or figures tied to the party (e.g., Vladimir Dutsev); he claimed fear of future persecution and inability to relocate safely in Russia.
- The IJ found the incidents did not amount to past persecution on account of a protected ground, were likely criminal/extortive or private violence, and that Rubanov failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; BIA agreed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rubanov suffered past persecution on account of political opinion/refusal to support United Russia | Rubanov: sustained demotion, pay cut, threats, assault, extortion, and harassment were motivated by United Russia or its affiliates | Gov: evidence shows private criminal activity or extortion, not actions by state/party actors tied to protected ground | Held: No past persecution; acts were private/criminal or insufficiently attributable to United Russia |
| Whether harassment and employment actions rose to persecution | Rubanov: demotion, pay reduction, threats constituted persecution | Gov: employment discrimination and isolated harassment do not equal persecution | Held: Demotion/pay cut and isolated threats are not persecution |
| Whether Rubanov has a well‑founded fear of future persecution | Rubanov: continued threats and lack of police protection create objective fear | Gov: no evidence compels conclusion of future persecution; internal relocation reasonable | Held: No objectively reasonable fear; failed to rebut need to show future risk or inability to relocate |
| Whether withholding of removal/CAT relief available | Rubanov: same facts justify withholding/CAT relief | Gov: failure to meet asylum standard forecloses withholding; CAT claim not appealed | Held: Withholding denied (asylum failure forecloses it); CAT denial not before court |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.) (scope of review when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard for factual findings)
- Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.) (reversal requires record to compel opposite conclusion)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.) (burden of proof for refugee/asylum status)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir.) (private criminal violence does not establish persecution on protected ground)
- Barreto‑Clara v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 275 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (employment discrimination that does not remove means of earning is not persecution)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (persecution requires more than isolated harassment or intimidation)
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (standard for subjective and objective elements of well‑founded fear)
- Amaya‑Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (issues not raised before BIA/brief are forfeited on appeal)