Kirill Alexandrovich Romanov, a native of Poland and citizen of Russia, sought asylum in the United States. He appealed an immigration judge's denial of his application to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed the appeal. The BIA found that Romanov failed to prove past persecution, noting that while his brother was beaten and threats were made against others intended for him, these acts did not rise to the level of persecution against Romanov personally. Additionally, the BIA found that Romanov was not harmed during a prior return to Russia in 2013 and that he could safely relocate within Russia. Romanov petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the BIA's decision.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision de novo, as the BIA issued its own decision rather than adopting the immigration judge's decision. Under the substantial evidence standard, the court examined whether the agency's factual findings and application of the Immigration and Nationality Act were supported by the record. The court affirmed that the agency's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the court noted that the beating of Romanov's brother and threats against third parties did not constitute past persecution against Romanov himself. Furthermore, the court upheld the BIA's finding that Romanov failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because he was not harmed during his prior return to Russia. The court also affirmed the BIA's determination that Romanov could relocate within Russia, noting that Romanov forfeited any challenge to this relocation decision by failing to raise the issue before the BIA or on appeal. Finally, the court declined to address Romanov's argument regarding particular social groups because the BIA had not reached that question.
The petition for review is denied, and the BIA's decision denying asylum stands. Romanov's motions to stay removal are denied effective upon the issuance of the mandate. The decision clarifies that threats against third parties and harm to family members do not automatically constitute past persecution against the petitioner. It also reinforces the requirement that petitioners must administratively exhaust challenges to relocation determinations before seeking judicial review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download