Stserba v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10174
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Estonian independence in 1991 led to denationalization of residents without pre-1940 citizenship; Stserba and Artjom, ethnic Russians born in Estonia, became stateless after denationalization.
- Stserba's citizenship was restored in 1993; Anton, born 1992, acquired Estonian citizenship at that time; Pabo accompanied in the U.S. with their son.
- Estonia 1998–1999 revoked recognition of Russian medical diplomas, effectively barring Stserba from practicing medicine in Estonia and shifting job opportunities.
- Anton has phenylketonuria (PKU); Estonia delayed or failed to diagnose him timely, leading to neurological damage; treatment formulas later provided in the U.S. at no cost.
- Petitioners entered the United States in July 2003 as nonimmigrant visitors; they applied for asylum and withholding of removal, conceded removability, and underwent IJ and BIA proceedings.
- IJ found petitioners credible but concluded no past persecution; BIA affirmed; this court granted review to remand for consideration of central legal issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ethnically motivated denationalization causing statelessness persecution? | Stserba's statelessness due to ethnicity constitutes persecution. | Denationalization is a sovereign policy, not per se persecution. | Remand necessary to decide if statelessness caused by ethnicity qualifies as persecution. |
| Does diploma invalidation based on ethnicity constitute persecution on account of ethnicity? | Diploma invalidation disproportionately affected Russians; constitutes ethnic persecution. | Diploma invalidation targeted broadly, not specifically by ethnicity. | Record supports past persecution; remand to address merits and causation. |
| Whether petitioners suffered past persecution warranting asylum or relief? | Aggregate harms, including citizenship loss and diploma effects, amount to past persecution. | Evidence does not establish persecution on the record in aggregate as required. | Past persecution established for Stserba related to ethnicity; remand on asylum discretionary relief. |
| Whether the BIA should determine withholding of removal in light of potential persecution findings? | Withholding should be considered given past persecution findings. | Withholding analysis should await updated findings on persecution. | Remand to reconsider withholding of removal consistent with updated persecution findings. |
| Should the case be remanded for a comprehensive aggregate consideration of citizenship denationalization, diploma invalidation, and medical care/harassment evidence? | Interrelated harms should be considered together to assess persecution. | Isolated determinations may suffice; grantee seeks remand for full analysis. | Court directs remand for holistic analysis of all harms together. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir.2009) (standard for questions of law and deference to BIA)
- Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir.2010) (Chevron deference to BIA constructions)
- Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615 (6th Cir.2004) (substantial evidence review standard for asylum)
- Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir.2005) (burden and standards for asylum and withholding)
- Haider v. Holder, 595 F.3d 276 (6th Cir.2010) (persecution includes nonphysical forms; aggregate evidence concept)
- Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615 (6th Cir.2004) (substantial evidence review standard for asylum)
- Mengstu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir.2009) (ethnicity-related persecution context cited in analysis)