*1 LUGOVYJ, Petitioner, Petro and BEFORE: CLAY McKEAGUE, Judges. Circuit Jr., HOLDER, United
Eric H. States Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 08 - 4620. McKEAGUE, Judge. of Appeals, States Court United petitions Petro Lugovyj Sixth Circuit. of a final decision of the court review (“Board”) Immigration Appeals Board Nov. 2009. withholding of application Na- Immigration removal under and tionality Act and for under the Against Torture. The Convention upheld immigration the decision of the who, judge, making adverse credibility regarding determination having tioner’s claim of been beaten and held robbed November Ukraine satisfy that had several requirements Specifically, for relief. immigration judge held (1) failed to demonstrate: violence upon visited him was motivated a statu- (2) torily protected ground; responsible ment officials were based having incited condoned the at- (3) tack; than likely would more pro- not suffer on account Ukraine; ground if he tected returned (4) he would more suffer torture if he returned to Ukraine. record, find On due consideration of the no error in the Board’s final decision. Where, here, adopts affirms the decision of the judge reasoning provides additional own, both its we review the decision of immigration judge the decision of the Board. Lazar v. (6th Cir.2007). Legal conclusions
9 novo, reviewed de but findings factual of people the who resist activities of reviewed under the deferential substantial criminal organizations corrupt Ukrain- Ramaj officials, standard. ian that his refusal to accede to 466 F.3d Factual the demands for protection money was findings be will disturbed if we find opposition viewed as to government cor- that the record only supports evidence not ruption, targeted he was for as- conclusion, a contrary but it. compels Id. sault because of opinion (i.e., opposition to corruption). crime and Petitioner contest the immigra- judge’s findings tion he Although there is no petition- doubt that removal and not eligible er was the victim of a criminal assault and maintains, however, that he robbery, ade- the immigration judge and the quately demonstrated his entitlement to Board concluded petitioner’s conten- withholding of removal. To qualify for tions about the assailants’ motivations removal, petitioner speculation must were based on and supposition, demonstrate a “clear probability” that his by and not supported evidence. The fact life freedom would be threatened petitioner’s “on that in died a car acci- race, religion, account of nationality, mem- in dent 2001 under petition- circumstances bership particular social group, or reportedly er’s father suspicious deemed Keisler, political opinion.” Kouljinski v. weight was accorded little because it was Cir.2007); speculative. U.S.C. too The record evidence was 1231(b)(3)(A). support finding that petitioner was the victim of motivat- petitioner Although was unable to identi- gain, financial rather any statu- fy three assailants who beat him to the torily protected Further, ground. noting point of unconsciousness and robbed him petitioner admittedly declined to file a in November they he believes were written statement with the to au- making good previous threats for refus- investigation, thorize ing meet their extortionist demands for judge and the Board concluded that he “protection money.” Petitioner contends failed to the government demonstrate the extortion and not on ac- unable or unwilling protect him or was count of his religion or nationality, complicit otherwise in the crime. Having but he was the owner a profit- failed to demonstrate the harm visited able automobile parts business and his as- on him of government-spon- result sailants wanted to make sored based on a protected having to work. The assailants had de- ground, the immigration judge and the continuously manded that he pay them half also concluded that of his business in exchange income to demonstrate it was more than not of his busi- that he cognizable would suffer persecu- ness. When if any asked he knew of con- tion or if torture he returned to Ukraine. nection between the assailants and the government, petitioner determinations, Ukrainian said challenging he In pe- these know, thought didn’t but that “probably titioner draw our attention to they were connected.” con- evidence that was overlooked the immi- tends he gration Rather, suffered was on account judge and the Board. imputed of his political opinion and mem- argues testimony, that his coupled with bership particular group. Spe- reports Department general State cifically, Ukraine, contends he is member of ditions law decisions narrowing must share of relief analogous theories
recognizing of be- than their risk to sustain characteristic other accepted as sufficient should be *3 remains Id. It follows ing persecuted.” what proof. of his burden a the harm suf- as linking to define himself lacking attempt is evidence tioner’s ground a members by petitioner protected to a whose group fered member of social complicity. government to and cor- by resisting crime risk retaliation The circular. ruption impermissibly is of evidence that distin- It is this lack is not based group social suggested Fedunyak v. case from Gon- guishes this characteristic cognizable immutable (9th Cir.2007), zales, petitioner’s claim that not where a Ukrainian businessman statutorily of a persecuted on account by lo- subject to extortion demands protected ground. for beatings officials and government cal to but was also noncompliance, simply falls The extant record evidence for in retaliation additional compelling far a conclusion short to repeated complaints authorities in its to reached trary corrup- government officials’ about local no Accordingly, we have final decision. “whistle-blowing” Fedunyak’s com- tion. final but to the Board’s uphold alternative represent protect- to plaints were deemed petitioner’s application decision activity, and the retaliation political protec- for of removal and for withholding governmental acting against suffered for Against Tor- tion under the Convention justify with- corruption was review must there- petition ture. The for contrast, Here, holding of removal. fore be and is DENIED. in- is no of governmental there ensuing in the or the volvement extortion concurring. Judge, evi- robbery. Nor there po- petitioner engaged in such dence this disposition in the I concur Court’s criticizing opposing litical as or of a man because the refusal business fail- government’s participation or pay protection private individ- to stop ure the extortion scheme. who violate local criminal law is not There basis for removal. unpersuasive is the contention that Also be a appear on this record to basis petitioner’s mere defiance of unidentified government were in finding that officials renders him a thugs’ extortion demands implicated in the harm. Petitioner’s fact group. A protected member of a social appointed had been persons all of “social group” surface, which, officer at on the dem- least “common, whom share a immutable char- hostility. of government onstrates lack acteristic,” ... “a fundamental characteris- many in the United places There are changed or tic that either cannot be should citizens are not safe from States where it is required changed not be to be activity. The statute from to the members’ individual fundamental enforce, 8 U.S.C. identities or consciences.” Castellano- 1231(b)(3)(A), does not include such I.N.S., 546-47 Chacon F.3d grounds threats in the list of Cir.2003). Yet, may “a not be simply says that the The statute it circularly defined the fact that suffers “may an alien to coun- 420 ment not remove persecution.” Rreshpja v. Attorney try if the General decides “The individ- F.3d the alien’s life of freedom would be threat- qualify place as a from which we should country ened such on the withhold removal. count of religion, nationality, membership par- group,
ticular social opinion.”
If asylum threats, for private allowed
probably every country in the world would